''FS.,'V-a»\:?^,-^»»-l»*"j'^^^»-jCt»\ri..J»t 


LIBRARY 

f  OF  THE 

University  of  California. 

...^ 4u.n^ 


1^ 

Class 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


.http://www.archive.org/details/digestofdecisionOOunitrich 


DIGEST  OF  DECISIONS 


OF  THE 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR 


IN 


APPEALED  PENSION  AND  BOUNTY-LAND  CLAIMS; 


ALSO 


A  TABLE  OF  CASES  REPORTED,  CITED,  OVERRULED,  AND  MODIFIED, 

AND  OF  STATUTES  CITED  AND  CONSTRUED,  CONTAINED  IN 

VOLS.    9   TO    15,    INCLUSIVE,    OF    THE    PENSION 

DECISIONS,   WITH    ANNOTATIONS. 


BY 

EUGENE  B.  PAYNE, 

Of  the  Bureau  of  Pensions. 

VESPASIAN  WARNER,  Commissioner. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE. 

1905. 


INTRODUCTION. 

A  comprehensive  digest  of  all  pension  decisions  rendered  by  the 
Secretary  since  the  formulation  and  issuance  of  the  Digest  of  1897 
has  long  been  needed  by  the  workers  of  the  Pension  Bureau.  Such 
a  work,  I  think,  I  have  succeeded  in  formulating.  The  analyzing, 
grouping,  arranging,  and  cross  referencing  of  tjie  vast  number  of 
pension  decisions  rendered  by  the  Secretary  upon  the  contested  points 
of  the  pension  laws  and  practice  arising  since  1897,  together  with 
appropriate  tables  and  some  annotations  by  the  author  relative  to 
the  points  decided  and  the  changes  in  the  practice  of  the  Bureau 
rendered  necessary  thereby,  has  been  no  easy  task.  If  I  have  suc- 
ceeded in  any  manner  in  making  lighter  the  daily  toil  of  my 
coworkers  in  the  Pension  Bureau  I  shall  be  satisfied.  I  therefore 
dedicate  this  work  to  them.  I  desire  to  thank  all  my  friends  who 
have  aided  me  in  the  preparation  of  this  Digest. 

Eugene  B.  Payne, 
Army  Division^  Bureau  of  Pensions. 

Washington,  D.  C,  November  i,  1905. 


142578 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  MATTER. 

First Title  page. 

Second Introduction. 

Third Explanation  of  cross  references  and  abbreviations. 

Fourth Table  of  general  titles. 

Fifth Table  of  cases  reported  in  and  digested  from  volumes  9  to  15,  Pen- 
sion Decisions,  both  inclusive. 

Sixth Table  of  cases  cited  in  volumes  9  to  15,  both  inclusive. 

Seventh Tables  of  laws  cited  and  construed  in  volumes  9  to  15,  both  inclu- 
sive, being  United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  sections  of  the  Revised 
Statutes  of  the  United  States,  and  State  statutes. 

Eighth Table  of  cases  overruled,  modified,  or  distinguished  in  volumes  1  to 

15,  both  inclusive. 

Ninth Cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  15,  both  inclusive,  digested  and 

arranged  in  chapters,*  with  index  to  each,  and  doubly  cross 
referenced. 

EXPLANATION. 

Every  decision  published  from  the  ninth  to  the  fifteenth  volumes  of  Pension 
Decisions,  inclusive,  is  placed  in  this  Digest  under  its  appropriate  title  or  sub- 
head and  then  cross  referenced  under  every  other  subhead  or  subject  to  which 
the  decision  alludes,  not  only  by  noting  the  chapter  of  this  Digest  where  the 
syllabus  of  the  decision  may  be  found,  but  also  the  volume  and  page  of  Pen- 
sion Decisions  where  the  entire  case  may  be  found. 


ABBREVIATIONS. 

L.  B.  P Letter  Book  Pensions,  being  the  early  records'  of  the  Interior 

Department  relative  to  pension  decisions  by  the  Secretary,  and 

dating  March  10,  1849. 
P.  D.,  o.  s Pension  Decisions  (old  series),  being  the  departmental  records 

(vols.  1  to  34)  of  pension  decisions  by  th  ^  Secretary  from  July 

5,  1872,  to  July  23,  1887. 
P.  D Pension  Decisions  (published  vols.  Nos.  1  to  15,  inclusive) ,  dating 

from  February  6,1886.  to  June  1,  1905. 
L.  B Current  Series  of  Press  Letter  Books,  dating  from  June  6,  1890, 

and  numbered  1  to  233  et  seq. 

Op Opinion  of  the  Attorney-General 

Sec Secretary. 

Asst.  Sec -Assistant  Secretary. 

Comr Commissioner  of  Pensions. 


TABLE 


GENERAL  TITLES. 


Page. 

Abandonment 105 

Absence 106 

Absence  from  command- -  _ 106 

Accidental  injury 106 

Accrued  pensions 106 

Act  February  1 1 ,  1847 112 

Act  March  3,  1855 112 

Act  March  25, 1862 112 

Act  July  4, 1864 : 112 

Act  March  3, 1865 112 

Act  July  18, 1874 112 

Act  June  17,  1878 112 

Act  March  3, 1879 112 

Act  June  16,  1880 112 

Act  July25,  1882 112 

Act  Aiigust7,  1882 112 

Act.August  8,  1882 113 

Act  March  3, 1883...    113 

Act  March  3, 1885 113 

Act  March  19,1886 ,  113 

Act  August  4, 1886 113 

Act  January  29,  1887 113 

Act  March  4, 1890 113 

Act  June  27,  1890 113 

Act  July  1,1890 .. 115 

Act  March  3, 1891 115 

Act  July  14,  1892 , 115 

Act  July27,  1892 115 

Act  January  5,  1893 115 

Act  December  21 ,  1893 115 

Act  March  2, 1895 115 

Act  March  6, 1896. 115 

Act  March  13,1896 116 

Act  February  5,  1897 116 

Act  March  30, 1898 116 

Act  March  3. 1899 116 

Act  April  23,  1900 116 

ActMay  9, 1900 116 

Act  March  3, 1901 116 

Act  June  27,  1902 116 

Act  January  15,  1903 117 


Page. 

Act  March  2, 1903. 117 

Adjudication _  117 

Admissions 117 

Adulterous  cohabitation 117 

Age ._  121 

Age  of  consent- 122 

Aggravation  and   recurrence  of 

old  disability 122 

Aid  and  attendance 122 

Alabama  laws 127 

Aliens 127 

Allegations  _ .1 127 

Amendments  .... 127 

Amputation 127 

Anterebellion    service  and   pen- 
sions   .128 

Apoplexy 129 

Appeals 129 

Applications 132 

Appointed  man 131 

Appointment 132 

Approximate  age 122 

Arkansas  laws 132 

Arizona  Territory,  laws  of 132 

Army  nurses. . 132 

Arrears 132 

Arterio-sclerosis 132 

Articles  of  separation 132 

Artificial  limb 132 

Assignment 132 

Asthma 132 

Ataxic  paraphlegia 133 

Attending  physician 133 

Attestation .  133 

Attorneys 133 

Bacteriology 142 

Beaty 's  Independent  Scouts 142 

Blindness 142 

Bounty 142 

Bounty  land 142 

Board  of  enrollment 144 

5 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Page. 

Brief  face - 144 

Burden  of  proof 144 

California  laws 144 

Cancer  - 145 

Case  of  difficulty  and  trouble 145 

Catarrh 144 

Catarrh  and  bronchitis 145 

Catarrh  and  general  paralysis  of 

the  insane 145 

Cause  of  disability 145 

Cayuse  Indians  - 145 

Cerebral  hemorrhage 145 

Cerebro-spinal  sclerosis 145 

Ceremony 145 

Certificate  of  disability 145 

Certificate  of  medical  examina- 
tion  145 

Charitable  institutions 146 

Cherokee  disturbances 146 

Cherokee  Nation 146 

Choctaw  Nation 146 

Chronic  ascending  neuritis 146 

Chronic  diarrhea 145 

Chyluria  parasitica 146 

Circumstantial  evidence 146 

Citizenship 146 

avilcode 146 

Civil  death 146 

Civilian  employees 146 

Civilians 146 

Cohabitation 146 

Cohabitation  and  repute 147 

Collusion 147 

Colorado  laws 147 

Colored  marriages 147 

Colored  or  Indian  soldiers  in  Ken- 
tucky   • 147 

Colored  persons _ . .  147 

Colored  troops 147 

Combination  of  causes 147 

Combined  rates . . 147 

Commencement 147 

Commencement  of  service 154 

Commissioner  of  Pensions- 154 

Commissioners  board  of  enroll- 
ment - 154 

Common-law  marriages 155 

Compounding  rates 147 

Conduct 155 

Confederate  service 155 

Connecticut  laws 155 

Consanguinity 155 

Conscription 155 


Page. 

Consolidation  of  claims  _ 155 

Construction  of  statutes 156 

Construed 155 

Continuance 155 

Contract 157 

Contract  surgeon  _ 157 

Contributions 156 

Contributory  negligence 157 

Cooperation  with  Navy 157 

Credibility 157 

Cruelty 157 

Deafness 158 

Death . 158 

Death  cause 158 

Death    from    drinking    unboiled 

water 158 

Death  in  service . . .  -  158 

Death  of  claimant 158 

Death  of  client . 158 

Declarations 171 

Decree 167 

Decree  a  mensa  et  thoro 168 

Decree  nisi 168 

Decree  of  nullity 168 

Default 177 

Defective  vision 178 

Delaware  laws 178 

Demonstration 1 78 

Dependence _  _  -  187 

Dependent  brothers  and  sisters  - .  195 

Dependent  parents 178 

Dependent  widow 188 

Deserted  wife 237 

Desertion 197 

Diarrhea * 229 

Difficulty  and  trouble 221 

Disability . 221 

Disbandment 221 

Disbarred  attorney 228 

Discharge 226 

Discharge  without  honor 228 

Disease  of  eyes 228 

Disease  of  heart 221 

Disease  of  kidneys  _  -  228 

Disease  of  rectum  and    uraemic 

poisoning 228 

Disease  of  spine 228 

Dishonorable  discharge 228 

Disloyalty 210 

Dismissal 229 

Dismissed 221 

District  of  Columbia  laws 228 

Division  of  pension -  237 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Page 

Divorce 229 

Domicile 263 

Double  pension 263 

Drafted  man 264 

Drafted  man  and  substitute   264 

Dropping 264 

Duress 264 

Election 264 

Ellet's  ram  fleet 265 

Emancipation - . .  .■ 265 

Emancipation  proclamation .  265 

Engaged  in  athletic  sports 265 

Enlistment 265 

Epilepsy 265 

Erysipelas 265 

Estoppel 265 

Evidence 267 

Examination  of  record 279 

Examining  surgeons 278 

Execution  ... : . 279 

Execution  of  papers 279 

Experts 279 

Failure  to  prosecute 279 

Faithful  service 279 

Fee 279 

Fee  agreements 289 

Fee  and  merit  claim 279 

Filing 289 

Final  action 292 

First  grade 289 

Florida  laws 289 

Florida  wars 289 

Foreign  divorces 290 

Forfeiture 290 

Fraud 290 

Fraud  and  mistake 290 

Fund 292 

Gangrene 292 

Georgia,  laws  of 293 

Gilpin's  battalion 293 

Good  faith  293 

Government  Hospital  for  the  In- 
sane    295 

Grade  rates 293 

Grandchildren  of  soldier 293 

Gray  "s  battalion 293 

Guardians 293 

Guardianship 295 

Gunshot  wound 295 

Gunshot    wound    and    paralysis 

agitans 295 

Hawkins-Taylor  Commission 295 

Hearsay 295 


Page. 

Helpless  minor 295 

Hemiplegia . 300 

Hernia 300 

Home  guards 300 

Honorable  discharge  .  - . 300 

Husband  and  wife 300 

Identity 300 

Illicit  cohabitation 301 

Illinois  laws 302 

Impediment 302 

In  arrest  awaiting  trial 302 

Income 302 

Increase 303 

Incubation 302 

Incurrence j^..  302 

Indiana  laws I*^  308 

Indian  divorces 308 

Indians 308 

Indian  wars 308 

Infants 309 

Insane  or  helpless  minor 309 

Insanity 309 

Inflammation  of  the  bladder  and 

hernia 310 

Injury  to  back 310 

Insane  persons 309 

Instructions  _ .  _ 310 

Intent 310 

Interlocutory  decree 311 

Interlocutory  order .  310 

Iowa  laws  .-- 311 

Joint  resolution  of  July  1 ,  1902  . .  311 

1.  Confederates 311 

2.  Union  deserters 311 

Judges'  minutes 311 

Judgment 315 

Jurisdiction 311 

Kansas  laws 315 

Kentucky  laws 315 

Lay  testimony 315 

Leave  of  absence 318 

Legal  representatives 315 

Legitimacy 315 

Length  of  service 318 

Lex  domicilii 319 

Lightning  stroke  and  paralysis .  -  319 

Limitation 319 

Line  of  duty 321 

Locomotor  ataxia 330 

Lost  warrant • 330 

Louisiana  laws 330 

Maine  laws 330 

Maine,  the 330 


8 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


Page. 

Malaria --..  330 

Malarial  poisoning 330 

Marital  desertion 330 

Marriage  _ ". 330 

Maryland  laws 385 

Massachusetts  laws  - .  - 385 

Material  service  . .  - 385 

Masters  and  mates •  385 

Means  of  support 386 

Medical  examinations . . .  -  386 

Medical  referee 386 

Meningitis . .  387 

Mental  deficiency 387 

Mexican  war 387 

Michigan  laws 387 

Military  age 387 

Militia 387 

Minnesota  laws 390 

Minor  grandchildren  -  - 387 

Minors 387 

Minors' pension '  390 

Missing  in  action . 391 

Mississippi  laws 390 

Mississippi  Marine  Brigade 391 

Missouri  laws 391 

Missouri  Militia 391 

Mistake 391 

Montana  laws 391 

Moral  character 391 

Murder 391 

Muster 391 

Muster  out  to  receive  new  com- 
mission   391 

Myopia 391 

Naval  Home 395 

Navy  pension 393 

Nebraska  laws 395 

Necessitous  circumstances 395 

Neglect  _  396 

Negligence 396 

Neuralgia 396 

Nevada  laws .  _ _ .  395 

New  disability 396 

New  examinations 396 

New  Hampshire  laws 395 

New  Jersey  laws 395 

New  Mexico  laws 395 

New  York  laws , 396 

No  benefit '. 396 

Nofund— nofee 396 

Nonresidents — claims  by 396 

Notice 397 

Nullity -.-.  397 


Page. 

Nunc  pro  tunc  decree 398 

North  Carolina  laws  _ .  1 398 

North  Dakota  laws 398 

Oaths  of  enlistment 398 

Obstruction  of  bowels 398 

1  (Edema 398 

I  Officer 398 

I  Ohio  laws... 398 

!  On  a  pass  to  hunt 398 

On  a  pass  to  visit  friends 398 

One  claim — one  fee 398 

I  Order  74 398 

I  Order  192 398 

j  Order  352 399 

Order  354 399 

Oregon  laws , .  400 

Origin 399 

Opinion  evidence 400 

Opinion  of  other  Departments. . .  400 

Orphan  brothers  and  sisters 400 

Pardon 400 

Pass  to  hunt 400 

Pass,  on  a,  to  visit  friends 400 

Pathological  sequence 401 

Pathology 400 

Paralysis 413 

Paralysis  agitans 413 

Payment 414 

Payment  of  pension 413 

Pending  claim 414 

Pennsylvania  laws 414 

Pension  fund 415 

Permanent  and  specific 415 

Personal  altercation 415 

Pilot : 415 

Poison 415 

Poisoning 415 

Powell's  battalion 415 

Power  of  attorney . 415 

Practice 416 

Predisposing  cause 432 

Preemption 432 

Presumption  as  to  material  serv- 
ice    432 

Presumption  as  to  prior  sound- 
ness   433 

Presumption  of  capacity 432 

Presumption  of  death 432 

Presumption  of  divorce 433 

Presumption  of  illicit  cohabita- 
tion    432 

Presumption  of  prior  service 433 

Presumption  of  vicious  habits. . .  432 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


9 


Page. 

Presumptions 432 

Prima  facie  case ^_-  433 

Prior  marriage 433 

Prior  service 433 

Prior  soundness- 433 

Probate  court 433 

Proof 434 

Proof  of  death 435 

Pro  rata  fee 434 

Provost  marshals : 434 

Putative  marriage 435 

Rank 435 

Rateand  rating 435 

Read  judication 443 

Recognition 443 

Reconsideration 443 

Record  _ 443 

Record  of  War  Department 443 

Recruit 444 

Refundment '. 446 

Reduction 444 

Reformation 446 

Reimbursement 446 

Reissue 446 

Rejected  recruit 444 

Rejection 448 

Remarriage 448 

Renewal 449 

Reopening 449 

Repayment : 449 

Representative  of  attorney 452 

Reputation _ .  452 

Rerating „ 449 

Residence  in  Soldiers'  Homes 452 

Res  judicata 452 

Restoration 453 

Retired  officer 461 

Retroactive  laws 461 

Retroactive  legislation 461 

Retrospective  laws 461 

Revenue  cutter 461 

Review 461 

Rheumatism 461 

Rhode  Island  laws 461 

Rule  to  show  cause 461 

Rule  No.  1  of  practice. . 461 

Rule  No.  2  of  practice . .  461 

Rule  No.  12  of  practice 461 

Rule  No.  13  of  practice 461 

Rule  No.  16  of  practice 461 

Rule  No.  19  of  practice 462 

Rule  No.  20  of  practice  _ 462 

Sabine  Indian  war 462 


Page. 

Schedule  of  rates : 462 

Sea  pay . ..  462 

Secretary  of  War 462 

Secretary  of  the  Interior  . . . 462 

Sections  2418-2424  and  2428,  Re- 
vised Statutes 462 

Section  2444,  Revised  Statutes. . .  462 
Sections  4692,  4693,  and  4694,  Re- 
vised Statutes 462 

Section  4693,  Revised  Statutes. . .  462 

Section  4698i,  Revised  Statutes.  _  462 

Section  4701 ,  Revised  Statutes. . .  462 

Section  4702,  Revised  Statutes. .  _  462 
Sections  4704, 4705, 4707,  and  4723, 

Revised  Statutes 463 

Section  4705,  Revised  Statutes. .  _  463 

Section  4706,  Revised  Statutes. . .  463 

Section  4707 ,  Revised  Statutes ...  463 
Section  4707,  Revised  Statutes,  as 
amended  by  act   of  June  27, 

1890 463 

Section  4713,  Revised  Statutes. . .  463 

Section  47 1 4 ,  Revised  Statutes ...  463 

Section  4715,  Revised  Statutes. . .  463 

Section  4716,  Revised  Statutes. . .  463 
Section   4716,   Revised   Statutes, 

and  act  June  27,  1890 464 

Section  4719,  Revised  Statutes. . .  464 

Section  4720,  Revised  Statutes. . .  464 

Section  4730 ,  Revised  Statutes ...  464 

Section  4756,  Revised  Statutes. .  _  464 

Section  4757,  Revised  Statutes. . .  464 

Senile  cataract 464 

Senility 464 

Separation 464 

Service 464 

Short  certificates 490 

Slaves 490 

Slave  marriages .     ( Also ,  see  Mar- 
riages, No.  15) 490 

South  Carolina  laws 491 

South  Dakota  laws 493 

Special  act 491 

Special  examination 492 

Special  examiners.  ...   492 

Special  examiners'  conduct 492 

Specialist 492 

Specific  disability 492 

Stare  decisis 492 

Substitutes-. -.... .-  492 

Substitution 492 

Succession 493 

Sufficient  averments 492 


10 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


Page. 

Sufficiency 492 

Supplemental 493 

Support 492 

Soldiers'  Home 492 

Sunstroke 492 

Suspension  - 493 

Suspension  of  payment 493 

Surgeon's  certificate 493 

Surgical  operation 493 

Syphilis 493 

Teamster 493 

Tennessee  laws 493 

Termination  of  pension  _ . . 493 

Termination ,  war  of  the  rebellion  _  493 

Test  medical  examination . 493 

Texas  laws 493 

Third  grade 494 

Title 494 

Total  disability  in  a  foot 494 

Total  disability  in  one  arm 494 

Total  disability  in  both  feet  - 494 

Travel  pay 494 

Treasurer  of  Soldiers'  Home 494 

Tuberculosis 494 

Two  claims  and  two  fees 494 

Two  pensions 494 

Typewritten  signature  of  attor- 
ney   494 

Typhoid  fever _ .  494 


Page. 

Ulceration  and  syncope 495 

Ulcerations .  . 494 

Unassigned  recruit 495 

Undergoing  punishment 495 

Utah  laws 495 

Vested  rights 495 

Veterinary  surgeons 495 

Vermont  laws 495 

Vicious  habits 495 

Virginia  laws 496 

Vision . 496 

Voidable  enlistments 496 

Voidable  marriages _ . .  496 

Void  enlistments 496 

Void  marriages 496 

Volunteers 496 

Wagon  masters. 496 

War  of  the  rebellion 497 

War  with  Mexico 496 

War  with  Spain  _ 497 

Western  gunboat  flotilla 497 

West  Virginia  laws 497 

Widow  and  minor 497 

Widows 497 

Widow's  pension . 497 

Widow's  title 497 

Wisconsin  laws 498 

Witnesses 498 

Wood  alcohol 498 


TABLE   OF    CASES   REPORTED   IN   VOLUMES   9   TO    15,    PENSION 
DECISIONS,  BOTH  INCLUSIVE,  AND  IN  THIS  J)IGEST. 


Name 


Voluine  and  page. 


Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


A. 

Aab,  George  (deceased) 

Ague,  Matilda 

Allen,  Elishup  P.  (insane) 

Anderson,  James  W 

Ai-mstrong,  Charles  A 

Acton,  Elizabeth  (alleged  widow) 

Adamson,  Angeline  (alleged  widow) 

Ahkee,  la-nee-gar,  Dah-Ya-ne 

Alden,  Reuben  (minor  of ) 

Afflerbach,  John  H.. — 

Alexander,  Enoch 

Anderson,  John  B 

Adams  v.  Adams 

Adams,  Elizabeth  (widow ) 

Adams,  Harriet  (mother) 

Ambers,  Sella  (widow) 

Allburn,  Christina  E .  (widow) 

Arose,  Martha  (as  widow) 

Ashley  v.  Ashley 

Alsup,  Susan  F., alias  Bean... 

Andrews,  Adaline  (minor) 

Andrews,  Peter 

Apgar,  Martha  (widow) 

Armstrong,  Jasper  N 

Do 

Atherton,  Jennie  (widow) 

Armstrong,  E.  E.  (attorney) 

Anabal,  Nancy  J.  (mother) 

Andrews,  Emma  A.  (widow) 

Anderson,  Cressie  L.  (minor) 

Alex,  Martha,  or  Alec  (widow) 

B. 

Baker,  Geo.  W 

Baker,  Matilda 

Baker,  William  A.  (dependent  sister  of) 

Barlow,  Henry 

Berlin,  H.  S.  (attorney) 

Do 

Bianchi,  Matteo  (deceased) : 

Bice,  William 

Boale,  William 


9  P.  D., 377 
9  P.  D.,  327 
9P.D.,  19 
9  P.  D.,  422 
9P.D.,  71 
IOP.D.,258 
10  P.  D.,  328 
10  P.  D.,  146 

10  P.  D.,  22 

11  P.  D.,  508 
11  P.  D.,  151 

11  P.  D.,  1 

12  P.  D.,  370 
12  P.  D.,  312 
12P.D.,428 

12  P.  D.,  333 

13  P.  D., 333 
13  P.  D.,  403 

13  P.  D.,  205 

14  P.  D.,  494 
14  P.  D.,  288 
14  P.  D., 413 
14  P.  D.,  7 
14  P.  D., 286 
14  P.  D., 420 

14  P.  D., 554 

15  P.  D., 317 
15  P.  D.,  194 
15  P.  D., 215 
15  P.  D.,  211 
15P.D.,590 

9  P.  D.,  125 
9  P.  D.,  116 
9P.D.,504 
9  P.  D.,  347 
9  P.  D., 471 
9  P.  D.,  147 
9P.D.,222 

9P.D.,  21 
9  P.  D., 376 


Fee,  No.  7. 

Adulterous  cohabitation,  No.  2. 

Attorneys,  No.  5. 

Service,  No.  10. 

Practice,  No.  3. 

Marriage,  No.  5. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (kk). 

Fee,  No.  10. 

Helpless  minor,  No.  3. 

Fee,  No.  1. 

Pathological  sequence.  No.  23. 

Amputation,  No.  1. 

Division  of  pension,  No.  ff. 

Marriage,  No.  3  (b). 

Commencement,  No.  11. 

Marriage,  No.  3  (c). 

Marriage,  No.  2  (1). 

Marriage,  No.  2  (aa). 

Division  of  pension.  No.  13. 

Service,  No.  22. 

Marriage,  No.  15. 

Discharge,  No.  4. 

Declarations,  No.  8. 

Increase,  No.  7. 

Commencement,  No.  9. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (t) 

Attorneys,  No.  18. 

Dependent  jiarents,  No.  2. 

Desertion,  No.  4  (d) . 

Marriage,  No.  2  (y). 

Marriage,  No.  2  (p). 

Rate  and  rating.  No.  11. 

Adulterous  cohabitation,  No.  2. 

Limitation,  No.  1. 

Service,  No.  7. 

Attorneys,  No.  6. 

Fee,  No.  1. 

Anterebellion  service  and  pen- 
sion, No.  1. 

Service,  No.  10. 

Attorneys,  No.  9. 


11 


12  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Tabic  of  cuscH  reported  in  volumes  9  to  15,  pension  decision,^,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Boedeker,  Henry 

Bonne veau,  Theresa  (widow) 

Boyle,  Julia  (mother) 

Brady,  Mary  (widow) 

Buck,  George,  jr 

Burgess,  John  A 

Burns,  Josephine  (widow ) 

Burton,  Jennette  (widow) 

Bush,  Sarah  (widow) 

Bailey,  Milton  W 

Baltzer,  George 

Bennett,  James 

Biggers,  Allen  (minor  of) 

Bird,  Daniel  (father) 

Borthwick,  Charles  F.,  alias  Brown 

Boss,  Maria  L.  (alleged  widow) 

Bonday,  Lany  (widow) 

Bowles,  Harvey  E 

Brennecke,  Fred 

Bruner,  Mathias  M 

Buchanan,  Sarah  (widow) 

Baltzer,  Francis 

Becker,  Adolph 

Bennett,  Clara  M 

Bennison,  Samuel 

Berry,  Samuel 

Blaisdell,  John '. 

Blitch,  Kathrina 

Bowman,  Samuel  S 

Brantigam,  Maria 

Brown,  Andrew  J 

Brown,  Minerva 

Buckler,  Wesley,  et  al.  (minors) 

Burke,  Mary  E.  (alleged  widow) 

Burns,  Henry  P.,  alias  Pat.  H 

Burton,  Reuben  (father) 

Beardslee,  C  R.,  alias  Barclay 

Benson,  John  _ 

Bills,  Hannah  J.  (widow) 

Brick,  George  J.  (insane) 

Briggs,  Henrietta  (widow) 

Burgoyne,  Annie  D.  (widow) 

Burke,  Margaret  (mother) 

Burke,  SanfordP 

Bullock,  Lovell 

Burton,  Rebecca  (mother) 

Beatty,  George  R 

Berger,  Charles  W , 

Blaisdell,  William  (deceased) 


Volume  and  page. 


Bonsall,  William  I 

Bridge,  Emily  C.  (widow)... 

Brobstv.  Brobst 

Brooks,  Mary  (widow) 

Brown,  Eliza  C.  (widow) 

Bunch,  Babbitt  (minors  of) . 


9P.D. 

9P.D. 

9P.D. 

9P.D. 

9P.D. 
,9P.D. 

9P.D. 

9P.D. 

9P.D. 
10  P.  D. 
10  P.  D. 
10  P.  D. 
10  P.  D. 
10  P.  D. 
10  P.  D. 
10  P.  D. 
10  P.  D. 
10  P.  D. 
10  P.  D. 
10  P.  D. 

10  P.  D. 

11  P.  D. 
11  P.  D. 
11  P.  D. 
11  P.  D. 
11  P.  D. 
11  P.  D. 
11  P.  D. 
11  P.  D. 
11  P.  D. 
11  P.  D. 
11  P.  D. 
11  P.  D. 
11  P.  D. 

P.D.,332 

11  P.  D., 

12  P.  D. 
12  P.  D.. 
12  P.  D., 
12  P.  D., 
12  P.  D., 
12  P.  D., 
12  P.  D., 
12  P.  D., 
12  P.  D., 

12  P.  D., 

13  P.  D., 
13  P.  D., 
13  P.  D., 

13  P.  D., 
13  P.  D., 
13P.D., 
13  P.  D., 
13  P.  D., 
13  P.  D., 


,207 
,507 

,287 

,;«r> 

,290 
,170 
,197 
,  31 
,144 
,150 
,  37 
443 
124 
104 
249 
36 
139 
133 
19 
46 
423 
516 
185 
195 
202 
210 
503 
247 
348 


,234 
,197 
,362 
294 
264 
221 
445 
147 
4.9 
182 
129 
379 
244 
509 
192 
393 
465 

283 
162 

218 
201 

188 


Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Service,  No.  5. 
Service,  No.  14. 
Dependent  parents.  No.  5. 
Service,  No.  8. 
Practice,  No.  4. 
Fee,  No.  7. 

Payment  of  pension.  No.  1. 
Marriage,  No.  3  (a). 
Desertion,  No.  2. 
Fee,  No.  7. 
Restoration,  No.  1. 
Rate  and  rating.  No.  7. 
Minors,  No.  2. 
Dependent  parents,  No.  1 . 
Res  judicata.  No.  3. 
Marriage,  No.  15. 
Service,  No.  4. 
Service,  No.  7. 
Service,  No.  10. 
Evidence,  No.  6. 
Marriage,  No.  3  (c). 
Lineof  duty.  No.  11. 
Disability,  No.  5. 
Estoppel,  No.  1. 
Fee,  No.  17. 
Declarations,  No.  4. 
Aid  and  attendance.  No.  4. 
Dependent  parents.  No.  2. 
Jurisdiction,  No.  1. 
Death  cause;  No.  5. 
Practice,  No.  16. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (v). 
Marriage,  No.  12. 
Evidence,  No.  10. 
Desef  tion,  No.  8. 
Legitimacy,  No.  3. 
Evidence,  No.  7. 
Attorneys,  No.  11. 
Divorce,  No.  5. 
Jurisdiction,  No.  2. 
Limitation,  No.  5. 
Marriage,  No.  3  (c). 
Dependent  parents.  No.  4. 
Desertion,  No.  3  (a). 
Reduction,  No.  2. 
Dependent  parents.  No.  6. 
Pathological  sequence.  No.  13. 
Restoration,  No.  3. 

Jurisdiction,  No.  4;  practice,  Nc. 

27. 

Rerating,  No.  3. 
Pathological  sequence.  No.  12. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  12. 
Reimbursement,  No.  2. 
Accrued  pensions.  No.  9. 
Marriage,  No.  8. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


13 


Tahle  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  15,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Volume  and  page, 


Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Butler,  Bridget  (widow) 

Buzick  V.  Buzick 

Ball,  Robert  H.- --.- 

Barney,  "Wilson  S.. _ -.. 

Bassett.  Mary  C,  now  Fleming  (as  minor 
sister ) . 

Bell,  James  R-.. -- 

Bluford,  John  (minor  of). .' 

Boazman,  Eliza  (widow) 

Bowman  v.  Bowman 

Bowman,  Jeremiah 

Boyd,  Melissa  (widow) 

Brechbiel,  Anthony  J.  (minors  of) 

Breezly,  Eliza  (widow).. 

Brown,  Catharine  A.  (widcw) 

Brown,  Eliza  G.  (widow) 

Buck  r.  Buck 

Bugbee,  Carlos  R.  (widow  of).. 

Burdette  v.  Burdette,  alias  Oakley 

Burkhead,  James  F.  (minors  of ) 

Burnham  v.  Burnham 

Burns,  Mary  A.  (widow) 

Button  &  Strunk  v.  Strunk 

Byrd,  Nancy  (widow) , 

Byrns  v.  Byrns. 

Brooks,  Lucy  (widow).. 

Brown,  Mark  W.  (attorney). 

Bedinger,  D.  L.  (attorney) 

Bean,  Susan  L.  (widow). 

Bishop,  James  H 

Blue,  Alice  C.  (widow) , 

Brown  v.  Brown 

Barker  v.  Barker -. , 

Bartoo  v.  Bartoo 

Bartlett,  Sarah  A.  (widow) 

Baldwin.  Ruth  B.  (widow). 

Bostor,  Bethany  F.  (widow) 

Brooks,  D.  L.  (widow).. 

Bolds,  Charles,  or  Bowles 

Barker,  Uzal  (claimant) 

Barnett,  Harriet  (mother)... 

C. 

Cahal,  Ann  (alleged  widow) 

Caldwell,  James ., 

Case,  Luther 

Clarkson,  Mary  A.  (widow) 

Commissioner  of  Pensions  : 

Cook,  Winnif red  J.  (widow) 

Cox,  Helena  (minor  of  Joseph) 

Cralle,  J.  B.,&Co.  (attorneys) 

Crittenden,  Henry 

Chatfield,AlonzoB 

Childers,  Isaac  B 

Childers,  Priscilla  (alleged  widow) 

Christie,  Indiana  (alleged  widow) 


13P.D.,234 

13  P.  D.,  143 

14  P.  D., 228 
14  P.  D., 524 
14  P.  D., 489 

14  P.  D., 224 
14  P.  D., 491 
14P.D.,355 
14  P.  D.,  120 
14  P.  D., 495 
14  P.  D., 279 
14  P.  D., 114 
14  P.  D.,  442 
14  P.  D., 375 
14  P.  D.,  106 
14  P.  D.,  150 
14P.D.,438 
14  P.  D.,  146 
14  P.  D.,  24 
14  P.  D.,  191 
14  P.  D.,  199 
14  P.  D.,  17 
14  P.  D.,  347 

14  P.  D.,  404 
15P.D.,  96 

15  P.  D.,  109 
15  P.  D., 359 
15  P.  D.,  18 
15  P.  D.,  276 
15  P.  D., 378 
15  P.  D.,  14 

15  P.  D.,  56 

16  P.  D.,  136 
15  P.  D., 290 
15  P.  D.,  413 
15  P.  D., 308 
15  P.  D., 392 
15  P.  D.,  51 
15  P.  D., 492 
15  P.  D., 500 


9  P.  D.,  127 
9P.D.,486 
9P.D.,  72 
9P.D.,299 
9P.D.,136 
9P.D.,  12 
9P.D.,  26 
9  P.  D.,  Ill 
9P.D.,  66 

10  P.  D., 

10  P.  D., 

10  P.  D., 

10  P.  D., 


99 


Marriage.  No.  2  (a). 
Division  of  pension.  No.  4. 
Attorneys,  No.  13. 
Rate  and  rating,  No.  10. 
Limitation,  No.  1. 

Navy  pension,  No.  2. 
Marriage,  No.  15. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (f). 
Division  of  pension,  No.  15. 
Line  of  duty.  No.  16. 
Divorce,  No.  9. 
Line  of  duty,  No.  7. 
Marriage,  No.  12. 
Desertion,  No.  4  (b). 
Restoration,  No.  3. 
Division  of  pension,  No.  15. 
Divorce,  No.  5. 
Division  of  pension,  No.  15. 
Limitation,  No.  6. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  4. 
Fee,  No.  22. 
Marriage,  No.  1. 
Marriage,  No.  10. 
Division  of  pension,  No.  4. 
Adulterous  cohabitation.  No. 
Attorneys,  No.  2. 
Attorneys,  No.  20. 
Dependent  parents.  No.  2. 
Desertion,  No.  7. 
Discharge,  No.  4. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  8. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  10, 
Division  of  pension,  No.  18. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (f). 
Marriage,  No.  2  (bb). 
Marriage,  No.  9. 
Marriage,  No.  11. 
Service,  No.  3. 
Attorneys,  No.  11. 
Evidence,  No.  10. 


Marriage,  No.  7. 

Rate  and  rating.  No.  2. 

Practice,  No.  6. 

Dependent  widow,  No.  1. 

Fee,  No.  3. 

Contributory  negligence,  No.  1 

Helpless  minor.  No.  1. 

Fee,  No.  6. 

Rerating,  No.  5. 

Construction  of  statutes,  No.  2. 

Rate  and  rating.  No.  2. 

Evidence,  No.  10. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (oo). 


14 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Table  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  lo,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Clark,  Andrew  G 

Cock,  George  B.. 

Comstock,  Harriet  (alleged  widow) 

Conklin ,  Philip  J .  ( minor  of) 

Conroy,  Catharine  (alleged  widow) 

Cooper, Emma  M.  (widow)  -• 

Cralle,  J.  B. ,  &  Co.  (attorneys) 

Carpenter,  Alfred 

Cashner,  Annie  C.  (widow) 

Chase,  Ransom  J 

Coburn,Mary  (widow) 

Coburn,  Phebe  Ann,  now  Bobbins  . 

Collins,  Martin 

Commissioner  of  Pensions 

Coney,  Patrick  H.  (attorney) 

Conover  v.  Conover 

Covert,  William  M 

Cralle,  J.  B. ,  «fc  Co.  (attorneys) 

Cunningham,  Andrew  G 

Caldwell,  Oscar 

Campbell,  Andrew 

Champlin,  Amy  (mother) 

Cleveland,  Andrew  B. 

Clough,  Phoebe  A.  (widow) 

Clark,  Harvey 

Clark,  Jacob  S 

Coats  I'.  Coats 

Codner,  Susan  (widow) 

Collins,  Amy  (widow) 

Collins,  Hiram  (father ) 

Cdnklin,  Watie  D.  (widow) 

Cook,  Cassilly  C- 

Cooke,  Annie  (widow) 

Cooper  V.  Cooper 

Cove,  Elizabeth  (mother) 

Crawford  v.  Crawford 

Crysler,  Susan  (widow) 

Cuchfil,  Fannie  (widow) 

Cahoe,  Sarah  (widow) 

Certain,  Bates  T 

Chase,  Eliza  (widow ) 

Christopher  v.  Christopher 

Christy,  Margaret  (widow) 

Cole,  Katy  (widow)... 

Coomer,  Christine  (widow) 

Cooper  V.  Cooper 

Cousens,  Katie 

Craig,  Mary  W.  (widow) 

Crume  v.  Crume 

Calhoun,  James  ( deceased) 

Capper,  Henry  M 

Carr,  William  H 

Carrier,  Laura  E.  (widow) 

Chambers,  Patrick  (father) 

Churn,  Peggy  (widow) 


Volume  and  page, 


10  P.  D. 

,271 

10  P.  D. 

,  39 

10  P.  D. 

,220 

10  P.  D. 

,368 

10  P.  D. 

,162 

10  P.  D. 

,434 

10  P.  D. 

,412 

11  P.  D. 

,429 

11  P.  D. 

,149 

11  P.  D. 

,483 

11  P.  D. 

,  43 

11  P.  D. 

,403 

11  P.  D. 

,206 

11  P.  D. 

,351 

11  P.  D. 

.490 

11  P.  D. 

,524 

11  P.  D. 

,195 

11  P.  D. 

,  25 

11  P.  D. 

,317 

12  P.  D. 

,331 

12  P.  D. 

,155 

12  P.  D. 

,  24 

12  P.  D. 

,  17 

12  P.  D. 

,486 

12  P.  D. 

,453 

13  P.  D. 

,  70 

12  P.  D. 

,507 

12  P.  D. 

,;M2 

12  P.  D. 

,292 

12  P.  D. 

,361 

12  P.  D. 

,258 

12  P.  D. 

,188 

12  P.  D. 

,116 

12  P.  D. 

,163 

12  P.  D. 

,472 

12  P.  D. 

,364 

12  P.  D. 

139 

12  P.  D. 

,450 

13  P.  D. 

96 

13  P.  D. 

413 

13  P.  D. 

49 

13  P.  D. 

383 

13  P.  D. 

,313 

13  P.  D. 

,105 

13  P.  D. 

,398 

13  P.  D. 

208 

13  P.  D. 

400 

13  P.  D. 

259 

13  P.  D. 

424 

14  P.  D. 

1.52 

14  P.  D. 

264 

14  P.  D. 

,201 

14  P.  D. 

,300 

14  P.  D. 

474 

14  P.  D. 

,445 

Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Practice,  No.  6. 
Pathological  sequence.  No.  19. 
Marriage,  No.  4. 
Helpless  minor.  No.  3. 
Marriage,  No.  12. 
Divorce,  No.  2. 
Fee,  No.  11. 
Attorneys,  No.  11. 
Fee,  No.  4. 
Evidence,  No.  15. 
Marriage,  No.  12. 
Estoppel,  No.  2. 
Service,  No.  22. 
Accrued  pensions,  No.  4. 
Attorneys,  No.  11. 
Evidence,  No.  11. 
Estoppel,  No.  1. 
Attorneys,  No.  9. 
Pathological  sequence.  No.  20. 
Rate  and  rating,  No.  8. 
Evidence,  No.  14. 
Dependent  parents,  No.  3. 
Commencement,  No.  7. 
Pathological  sequence.  No.  6. 
Pathological  sequence,  No.  2. 
Aid  and  attendance.  No.  2. 
Division  of  pension,  No.  4. 
Death  cause,  No.  11. 
Marriage,  No.  12. 
Dependent  parents,  No.  4. 
Adulterous  cohabitation,  No.  10. 
Berating,  No.  2. 
Fraud  and  mistake,  No.  1. 
Diyision  of  pension.  No.  1 . 
Dependent  parents.  No.  4. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  7. 
Restoration,  No.  2. 
Desertion, No.  4(a). 
Marriage,  No.  6. 
Attorneys,  No.  4. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (r ) . 
Division  of  pension.  No.  18. 
Death  cause,  No.  13. 
Pathological  sequence,  No.  10. 
Commencement,  No.  1. 
Divorce,  No.  3 
Appeals,  No.  5. 
Disloyalty,  No.  9. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  15. 
Reimbursement,  No.  4. 
Amputation,  No.  1 . 
Pathological  sequence,  No.  17. 
Death  cause,  No.  6. 
Legitimacy,  No.  7. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (oo). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  15 

Tabic  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  lo,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Claggett,  Emily  ( widow ) 

Clark,  Sarah,  n^e  Phillips  (widow). 

Clarke  i'.  Clarke 

Coney,  Patrick  H.  (attorney) 

Connell,  William 

Cook,  Jane  (widow) -  - . 

Courtney,  Edward  T ..._ 

Cralle,  J.  B.,  &  Co.  (attorneys) 

Crissey  v.  Crissey 

Cummings,  Anna  E.  (widow) 

Curtis,  SamuelT 

Clark,  John 

Corey,  P.  H.  (widow) 

Clements,  M.  C.  (widow ) 

Cashman  v.  Cashman 

Curtis  V.  Curtis 

Cornell,  Isabella 


Volume  and  page. 


Cofleld,  James,  alias  William'  Scofleld  (mi- 
nors of ) . 

Cash,  Rosannah  (widow) 

Coon,  Amanda  M.  (widow)... 

Collins,  Mary  F.  (widow) 

Cavanaugh,  Patrick 

Caperton,  James  O 

Conner,  Mary  E.  (widow) 

Cutter,  Richard  H 

Clark,  Squire... 

Corte,  Ellen  (widow) 

Crowley  v.  Crowley... 

D. 

Davis,  Evaline  (widow) 

Davis,  John  (minors  of) 

Dees,  Alexander  W 

Dempsey,  Annie  (widow) 

Dennis,  Annie,  formerly  Reno. 

Drake,  George  W.. 

Dudgeon,  Joseph  A 

Duffle,  John  H.  (attorney) 

Duggins,  Dorens,  now  Nance 

Duval,  James _ 

Dump,  Samuel  B 

Dyer,  David  H 

Dalrymple,  Wesley 

Daniels,  Eliza  A.  (mother) 

Darling,  Elizabeth 

Darling,  Elizabeth  (mother) 

Davis,  Chauncey 

Davis,  Francis  M 

Davis,  Hiram  A 

Davis,  Margaret  E. 

Davis,  Mark... 

Davis,  Norman 

Decker,  Demmon  S 

Delo,  Daniel  M-. 

Dudley,  W.  W.  (attorney) 


14  P.  D. 

,  84 

14  P.  D. 

,213 

14  P.  D. 

,479 

14  P.  D. 

,328 

14P.D. 

,371 

14  P.  D. 

,426 

14  P.  D. 

,518 

14  P.  D. 

,276 

14  P.  D. 

,334 

14  P.  D. 

,365 

14  P.  D. 

,298 

15  P.  D. 

,410 

15  P.  D. 

,203 

15  P.  D. 

,324 

15  P.  D. 

,221 

15  P.  D. 

,143 

15  P.  D. 

,407 

15  P.  D. 

,386 

15  P.  D. 

,103 

15  P.  D. 

,240 

15  P.  D. 

,258 

15  P.  D. 

,362 

15  P.  D. 

,332 

15  P.  D. 

,201 

15  P.  D. 

,366 

15  P.  D. 

,294 

15  P.  D. 

,427 

15  P.  D. 

,567 

9P.D. 

,  2 

9P.D. 

,151 

9P.D. 

,455 

9P.D. 

,149 

9P.D. 

243 

9P.D. 

273 

9P.D. 

,413 

9P.D. 

,402 

9P.D. 

,402 

9P.D. 

218 

9P.D. 

,416 

9P.D. 

,  87 

10  P.  D. 

,250 

10  P.  D. 

,153 

10  P.  D. 

,244 

10  P.  D. 

,299 

10  P.  D. 

,  12 

10  P.  D. 

,270 

10  P.  D. 

,403 

10  P.  D.,  403, 236 

10  P.  D. 

,185 

10  P.  D. 

147 

10  P.  D. 

,198 

10  P.  D. 

,319 

.  10  P.  D. 

,144 

Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Adulterous  cohabitation.  No.  5. 
Line  of  duty.  No.  14. 
Division  of  pension,  No.  8. 
Attorneys,  No.  10. 
Dependent  parents,  No.  4. 
Declarations,  No.  5. 
Line  of  duty.  No.  15. 
Fee,  No.  23. 

Division  of  pension.  No.  17. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (bb). 
Service,  No.  3. 
Appeals,  No.  8. 
Dependent  widow,  No.  4. 
Dependent  widow,  No.  5. 
Division  of  pension,  No.  1. 
Division  of  pension,  No.  20. 
Helpless  minor.  No.  3. 
Legitimacy,  No.  4. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (d). 
Marriage.  No.  3  (t). 
Marriage,  No.  2  (z). 
Practice,  No.  1. 
Rerating,  No.  6. 
Service,  No.  3. 
Service,  No.  7. 
Service,  No.  24. 
Vicious  habits.  No.  2. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  15. 

Dependent  widow,  No.  1. 

Minors,  No.  1. 

Fraud  and  mistake.  No.  1. 

Do. 
Marriage,  No.  12. 
Jurisdiction,  No.  3, 
Rate  and  rating,  No.  3. 
Fee,  No.  4. 

Do. 
Res  judicata.  No.  1. 
Desertion,  No.  3  (a). 
Service,  No.  3. 
Appeals,  No.  3. 
Dependent  parents.  No.  3. 
Dependent  parents,  No.  6. 
Dependent  parents,  No.  7. 
Practice,  No.  11. 
Service,  No.  10. 
Attorneys,  No.  18. 

Do. 
Rate  and  rating.  No.  4. 
Fee,  No.  8. 

Do. 
Evidence,  No.  7. 
Fee,  No.  6. 


16  PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

Tahle  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  15,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Volume  and  page 


Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Dupra,  Mary  J.  (widow) 

Dronant,  Joseph  (deceased) 

Dare,  Simeon  W 

Dougherty,  S.  W.,  &  Co.  (attorneys) 

Decker,  Sarah  M.  (widow) 

De  Gough,  Mary  M.  (widow) 

Dilley,AsaH - 

Dilworth,  Emily  O.  (widow) 

Dolan,  Harla  (minor  of)... 

Dolan,  Mary  E.  (widow) - 

Dorgan,  Johanna  (widow) 

Douglas,  George  "W.  (minors  of) 

Dudley,  "W.  W.  (attorney) 

Denny,  Henry 

Devening,  Ellen  (widow) -. 

Dyer,  David  (father) 

Dana,  Diana  M.  (widow) 

Daugherty  v.  Doherty 

Davis,  Louisa  (widow) 

Delozier  v.  Delozier 

Dunn  V.  Dunn. 

Durnell,  George  B 

Duross,  James 

Dustin  V.  Dustin ..'. 

Daniels,  Harriet  (widow) 

Dasher,  Mary  (widow) 

Davis,  Maggie  (widow) 

Davis,  Margaret  A.  (widow) 

Demaree,  Dottie  M.  (sister) 

Demo  V.  Demo 

De  Ortega,  P.  M.  (widow) 

Dolan,  Thos.  J.  (father). 

Draper,  Mary  E.  (widow) 

Dudley,  W.  W.,  &  Co.  (attorneys) 

Do 

Do. 

Davis,Isabelle,formerly Henderson  (mother) 

Davis,  Annie  (widow) 

Disaga,  Franz  J 

Dunn,  MoUie  (widow) 

Davis,  Sarinda  (widow) 

Draper,  Martha  (alleged  widow) 

Daughtrey,  Lenetta  A.  (widow) 

Dobbs,  Elisha  (minors  of) 

E. 

Edwards,  Thomas  J 

Ellis,  George  (deceased) 

Elston,  Lucinda  (widow) 

Emmons,  Angeline 

Engleman,  Charles 

Earl,  Elvin 

Eaves,  Simon  P.  (deceased) 

Elberson,  Henry  (minor  of ) 

Elliott,  Mary  H.  (mother) 


10  P.  D 

,  86 

10  P.  D 

,144 

11  P.  D. 

,431 

11  P.  D. 

,  49 

11  P.  D. 

,200 

UP.D. 

,336 

11  P.  D. 

,257 

11  P.  D. 

,459 

11  P.  D. 

,  62 

11  P.  D. 

,  62 

11  P.  D. 

,437 

11  P.  D. 

,448 

UP.D. 

,496 

13  P.  D. 

,226 

12  P.  D. 

,434 

12  P.  D. 

,401 

13  P.  D. 

,272 

13  P.  D. 

,302 

13  P.  D. 

,129 

13  P.  D. 

,176 

13  P.  D. 

,422 

13  P.  D. 

,226 

13  P.  D. 

,222 

13  P.  D. 

,  77 

14  P.  D. 

,434 

UP.D. 

,257 

UP.D. 

,344 

UP.D. 

,408 

U  P.  D. 

,  4 

UP.D. 

,394 

U  P.  D. 

,326 

U  P.  D. 

,294 

UP.D. 

,456 

UP.D. 

,186 

UP.D. 

273 

15  P.  D. 

100 

15  P.  D. 

335 

15  P.  D. 

278 

15  P.  D. 

430 

15  P.  D. 

223 

15  P.  D. 

447 

15  P.  D. 

283 

15  P.  D. 

44 

15  P.  D. 

488 

9P.D. 

340 

9P.D. 

223 

9P.D. 

502 

9P.D. 

129 

9P.D. 

47 

10  P.  D. 

176 

10  P.  D. 

177 

UP.D. 

150 

UP.D. 

34 

Disloyalty,  No.  2. 
Fee,  No.  6. 

Commencement,  No.  1. 
Attorneys,  No.  12. 
Fraud  and  mistake.  No.  3. 
Rate  and  rating,  No.  3. 
Declarations,  No.  6. 
Death  cause.  No.  5. 

Do. 

Do. 

Evidence,  No.  13. 

Minors,  No.  1. 

Fee,  No.  16. 

Service,  No.  16. 

Marriage,  No.  4. 

Dependent  parents.  No.  8. 

Marriage,  No.  4. 

Division  of  pension.  No.  13. 

Marriage,  No.  15. 

Practice,  No.  10. 

Division  of  pension.  No.  12. 

Service,  No.  23. 

Pathological  sequence.  No.  24. 

Division  of  pension.  No.  13. 

Declarations,  No.  2. 

Service,  No.  22. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (p). 

Service,  No.  3. 

Dependent  brothers  and  sisters, 
No.  1. 

Division  of  pension.  No.  4. 

Discharge,  No.  5. 

Dependent  parents.  No.  4. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (s). 

Attorneys,  No.  1. 

Attorneys,  No.  10. 

Dependent  parents.  No.  2. 

Dependent  parents.  No.  10. 

Divorce,  No.  4. 

Insane  person.  No.  3. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (b). 

Marriage,  No.  2  (qq). 

Marriage,  No.  8. 

Service,  No.  3. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (b). 


Attorneys,  No.  11. 
Declarations,  No.  2. 
Dependent  widow,  No.  1. 
Death  cause.  No.  2. 
Disability,  No.  2. 
Rate  and  rating,  No.  2. 
Declarations,  No.  2. 
Fee  agreement.  No.  1. 
Rank,  No.  2. 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  17 

Table  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  15,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Volume  and  page. 


Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Ellis,  Alphonso  "W 

Ellis,  Emily,  v.  Leroy  Ellis 

English,  R.  G -.. 

Easley,  Daniel  M.  (minors  of). 

Eborn,  Caroline  (widow) 

Eldridge,  Henrietta  (widow)  . 

Ellis,  Eliza  J.  (widow) 

Edwards,  Oscar  B 

Elmore,  S.,  nee  Long  (widow) 

Enflnger.  John 

Easter,  William 

Edington,  Julia 

Elliott  v.  Elliott 

Ensor,  Delbert  H  - 

Eveland,  Daniel 

Eveland,  Eliza  J.  (widow) 

Evans,  Charles.. 

Earle,  George  H , 

Elliott,  Mary  A 

Eberlein,  Katharina  (widow). 
Eaton,  Charles  A 

F. 
Farmer,  William  H 

Fagin,  Ann  (widow) 

Featherly ,  William 

Fellows,  John  W 

Filler,  Ida  E.  (widow) 

Fitch,  Martin  B 

Fitzpa trick,  Samuel 

Fleener,  Andrew  J 

Flourney ,  Charles  H 

Fox,  Elizabeth  W.  (widow) .. 

Foote,  C.  E.  (attorney) 

Ford,  Dan.  B 

Frank,  Francis 

Fritz,  Elizabeth  (widow). 

FuUbright,  Miles  F 

Fane,  Amanda  (now  Smith).. 

Fetterly,  Jerome 

Foote,  C.  E.  (attorney) 

Fuller,  Sally  A.  (widow) 

Finley,  William 

Fisk,  Mary  J.  (widow) 

Fitchett,  Frank  (father) 

Fitzgarield,  James 

Fitzpatrick,  John 

Forbes,  Andrew 

Foster,  Florence  E.  (widow) . . 

Filones  v.  Filones 

Fisher  v.  Fisher 

Fisher,  Rebecca  J.  (widow) ... 

Fleagle  r.  Fleagle 

Fowler,  Sarah  A.  (widow) 

13070—06 2 


11  P.  D. 

,  93 

11  P.  D. 

,288 

IIP.D. 

,177 

12  P.  D. 

,179 

12  P.  D. 

,287 

12  P.  D. 

,316 

12  P.  D. 

,159 

13  P.  D. 

,352 

13  P.  D. 

,435 

13  P.  D. 

,248 

14  P.  D. 

,172 

14  P.  D. 

,362 

14  P.  D. 

,472 

14  P.  D. 

,  81 

14  P.  D. 

,  40 

14  P.  D. 

,141 

15  P.  D. 

,359 

15  P.  D. 

,  1 

15  P.  D. 

,  23 

15  P.  D. 

,375 

15  P.  D. 

,232 

9P.D. 

,  4 

9P.D. 

,  62 

9P.D. 

,106 

9P.D. 

,370 

9P.D. 

,126 

9P.D. 

,481 

9P.D. 

,171 

9P.D. 

,133 

9P.D. 

,259 

9P.D. 

.  5 

9P.D. 

,340 

9P.D. 

,137 

9P.D. 

,  68 

9P.D. 

,193 

9P.D. 

,146 

10  P.  D. 

,254 

10  P.  D. 

,460 

10  P.  D. 

,147 

10  P.  D. 

,238 

11  P.  D. 

,410 

11  P.  D. 

,162 

11  P.  D. 

167 

11  P.  D. 

462 

11  P.  D. 

490 

11  P.  D. 

329 

11  P.  D. 

480 

12  P.  D. 

237 

12  P.  D. 

336 

12  P.  D. 

417 

12  P.  D. 

,  56 

12D.D. 

,521 

Declarations,  No.  7. 
Division  of  pension,  No.  2. 
Service,  No.  3. 
Res  judicata,  No.  2. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (cc). 
Restoration,  No.  2. 
Marriage,  No.  15. 
Commencement,  No.  1. 
Restoration,  No.  2. 
Disloyalty,  No.  9. 
Attorneys,  No.  18. 
Adulterous  cohabitation,  No.  7. 
Division  of  pension,  No.  16. 
Line  of  duty,  No.  17. 
Commencement,  No.  10. 
Restoration,  No.  4. 
Attorneys,  No.  20. 
Prior  soundness.  No.  1. 
Service,  No.  3. 

Do. 
Service,  No.  8. 

Certificate  of  medical  examina 
tion,  No.  1. 

Adulterous  cohabitation.  No.  2. 

Disability,  No.  3. 

Rate  and  rating.  No.  3. 

Service,  No.  5. 

Aid  and  attendance,  No.  1. 

Pending  claim.  No.  1. 

Disability,  No.  1. 

Commencement,  No.  3. 

Marriage,  No.  4. 

Attorneys,  No.  IL 

Do. 

Disability,  No.  3. 

Anterebellion  service  and  pen- 
sion, No.  2. 

Disloyalty,  No.  1. 

Marriage,  No.  15. 

Attorneys,  No.  8. 

Fee,  No.  8. 

Decree  of  nullity.  No.  1. 

Navy  pension.  No.  1. 

Commencement,  No.  1. 

Marriage,  No.  15. 

Pathological  sequence,  No.  20. 

Attorneys,  No.  11. 

Origin,  No.  1. 

Pathological  sequence,  No.  21, 

Division  of  pension,  No.  10, 

Division  of  pension,  No.  9, 

Marriage,  No.  3  (b). 

Division  of  pension,  No.  4. 

Service,  No,  10, 


18 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


Table  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  lo,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Volume  and  page. 


Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Fox,  Cora  B.  (minor) 

Franklin,  Alice  and  Ellen  (widows) 

Fanning  v.  Fanning 

Foote,  C.  E.  (attorney) 

Forbin  v.  Forbin 

Frank,  Sam  D 

Fritts  y.  Fritts 

Fleming,  Mary  C,  nee  Basse tt  (minor  sister) 

Fletcher,  William,  &  Co.  (attorneys) 

Frederick  v.  Frederick 

Fuerst,  Josephine  (widow) - 

Fane,  Amanda,  alias  Lyons  (insane  widow) 
Fish,  Benjamin  R 

G. 

Geiger,  Helen  M.  (widow) 

Gilbert,  George  "W 

Gillcoflf,  Rebecca  J.  (widow  J.  Barton) 

Goard,  John  R 

Goin,  Frederick  P 

Goodin ,  Isaac 

Granless,  John  W 

Gallich,  Anna  M.  (widow) 

Gass,  Rhoda  A.  (widow) 

Gates,  Johanna  (widow) 

Germain,  Louisa  C.  (widow) 

Gilder,  Miles 

Grebe,  M.  R.  Wm... 

Gamer,  Thomas  (father) 

Germain  Louisa  C.  (widow) 

Guernsey,  Charles  F.  M 

Griffin,  Margaret  (widow) 

Gabriel,  Frangoise 

Ganoe,  Gideon 

Geary,  George 

Gill,  Nicholas 

Glover,  Lettia  (widow) 

Goforth,  I.  B.,  alias  Gordon 

Gray,  Harriet  (mother) 

Green,  Ann  (widow) 

Gardner,  Thomas  F 

Gembe,  Mary  (widow) 

Gillespie,  John  (minors  of) 

Gilliland,  Mary  J.  (widow) 

Goodman,  Mary  A  (widow) 

Graves,  James  R.  (minors  of) 

Gamble,  Charlotte  (widow) 

Gee,  Cora,  now  Stol worth  (mother) 

Goshorn,  E.,  nee  Vallean 

Graziani,  Mattie  (widow) 

Griswold,  E.  S.,  now  Lamb  (widow) 

Groner,  Cornelius  F 

Gibson,  Hardy 

Gardner,  Mary  D.  (widow) 

Green  r.  Green 

Gourick,  David  A.  (attorney) 


12  P.  D.,  102 

12  P.  D., 505 

13  P.  D.,  161 
13  P.  D., 444 
13  P.  D.,  120 
13  P.  D., 362 

13  P.  D.,  24 

14  P.  D., 489 

14  P.  D.,  172 
15P.D,  38 

15  P.  D., 486 
15  P.  D.,  503 
15  P.  D., 548 


9P, 
9P, 
9P, 
9P, 
9P, 
9P, 
9P, 

10  P. 

10  P. 

10  P, 

10  P. 

10  P. 

10  P. 

IIP. 
11  P.  D. 

IIP. 

IIP. 

12  P. 

12  P. 

12  P. 

12  P. 

12  P. 

12  P. 

12  P. 

12  P. 

13  P. 
13  P. 
13  P. 
13  P. 
13  P. 

13  P. 

14  P. 
14  P. 
14  P. 
14  P. 
14  P. 

14  P. 

15  P. 
15  P. 
15  P. 
15  P. 


D.,  28 
D.,279 
D.,406 
D.,355 
D.,423 
D.,261 
D.,285 
D.,311 
D.,  9 
D.,  28 
D.,393 
D.,167 
D.,  92 
D.,297 
,66,131 
D.,  64 
D.,282 
D.,382 
D.,  50 
D.,294 
D.,  54 
D.,497 
D.,253 
D.,131 
D.,306 
D.,  84 
D.,460 
D.,280 
D.,  90 
D.,  37 
D.,148 
D.,156 


D.,109 
D.,328 
D.,450 
D.,318 


Legitimacy,  No.  5. 
Marriage,  No.  4. 
Practice,  No.  10. 
Attorneys,  No.  9. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  12. 
Rate  and  rating.  No.  9. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  16. 
Limitation,  No.  1. 
Attorneys,  No.  13. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  20. 
Practice,  No.  2. 
Marriage,  No.  15. 
Service,  No.  22. 


Service,  No.  4. 
Disloyalty,  No.  1. 
Line  of  duty.  No.  2. 
Fee,  No.  8. 

Aid  and  attendance.  No.  1. 
Medical  examination,  No.  1. 
Practice,  No.  4. 
Divorce,  No.  2. 
Dependent  widow.  No.  1. 
Dependent  widow,  No.  5. 
Marriage,  No.  4. 
Fee,  No.  12. 
Evidence,  No.  4. 
Dependent  parents,  No.  4. 
Marriage,  No.  13. 
Disloyalty,  No.  4. 
Service,  No.  19. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (p). 
Disability,  No.  7. 
Rate  and  rating.  No.  8. 
Declarations,  No.  7. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (o). 
Desertion,  No.  3  (a). 
Dependent  parents.  No.  4. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (bb). 
Evidence,  No.  7. 
Decree  of  nullity,  No.  4. 
Declai*ations,  No.  6. 
Marriage,  No.  4. 
Fee,  No.  21. 
Minors,  No.  2. 
Marriage,  No.  15. 
Dependent  parents.  No.  4. 
Restoration,  No.  2. 
Helpless  minor,  No.  4. 
Restoration,  No.  2. 
Disability,  No.  10. 
Attorneys,  No.  2. 
Commencement,  No.  14. 
Division  of  pension,  No.  13. 
Fee,  No.  26. 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  19 

Table  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  15,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Volume  and  page. 


Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Gleeman,  Fred 

Getman,  Oscar 

Gore,  William  H 

Gaebel,  now  Rohr  (widow ) 

Gillespie,  Moses 

Gregoi*y,  Thomas  J. 

Gregg,  Isaac  D :. 

Grove,  Alf ordine  (widow) 

H. 

Hamilton,  A.  S.  (minors  of) 

Haffner,  Mary  (widow) 

Hall,  AlVaH 

Hall,  Elvira  (widow) 

Hall,  Laura  (widow),  now  Gregg . 

Halloway ,  Daniel  (minors  of) 

Hankinson,  Obediah  P 

Harlow,  John  R -. 

Harris,  "William 

Harrison,  JamesE 

Haskett,  Andrew  W 

Hayford,  Ira  W 1 

Haynie,  Henry  N 

Helmer,  Henry  A 

Helve,  Matilda  (widow) 

Hess,  Morris 

Hiett,  Stephen 

Hird,  JohnW 

Hockey,  William  (minors  of) 

Hoepfner,  Louisa  S.  (widow) 

Hoffman,  M.  M.  (widow  of  Oskar) 

Howard,  Millie  (now  Payne) 

Hubley,  John  S 

Hughes,  W.  H.  (deceased) 

Hulse,  William 

Hummel,  Elsie  (widow) 

Hunt,  Lucy  (dependent  sister) 

Hurst,  Mary  Ann  (mother) 

Hagarty,  William  H 

Hardy,  John  A 

Harms,  Maria  (widow) 

Hawkins,  Margaret  (widow) 

Hayne,  James  (minor  of) 

Hawkins,  Sarah  J.  (widow) 

Hebel,  Charles 

Heinrichs,  William 

Heintz,  Sybilla  (widow) 

Hendrickson,  Joseph  E 

Hetherington,  Aura  (widow) 

Higgins,  Anna  (widow) 

Hodgkin,  Sally  (widow) 

Hoffman,  George  M 

HoUis,  Lucius  S 

Hudson,  Tony 

Hughes,  Ascha  (mother) 

Hughes,  Mai'y  E.  (widow) 


15  P.  D.,  54 
15  P.  D.,  150 
15  P.  D., 299 
15  P.  D., 381 
15  P.  D.,  130 
15  P.  D.,  396 
15  P.  D., 340 
15  P.  D., 540 


,165 
,  17 
,439 
,  18 
,392 
,  54 
,  73 


7  P.  D., 437 
9  P.  D.,  169 
9P.D, 
9P.D, 
9P.D, 
9P.D, 
9P.D, 
9P.D, 
9P.D 
9  P.  D.,  433 
9P.D.,  8 
9  P.  D.,  307 
9P.D.,304 
9  P.  D.,  130 
9  P.  D.,  249 
9  P.  D.,  252 
9  P.  D., 313 
9  P.  D.,  263 
9  P.  D.,  164 
9  P.  D.,  497 
9P.D.,227 
9  P.  D.,  188 
9P.D.,  48 
9  P.  D.,  152 
9  P.  D.,  121 
9  P.  D., 311 
9  P.  D.,  160 
9P.D.,406 
10  P.  D.,  359 
10  P.  D.,  64 
10  P.  D.,  453 
10  P.  D.,  191 
IOP.D.,345 
10  P.  D., 370 
IOP.D.,448 
10  P.  D.,  321 
10  P.  D.,  289 
10  P.  D., 376 
IOP.D.,^5 
10  P.  D.,  110 
10  P.  D., 326 
10  P.  D., 268 
10  P.  D., 414 
10  P.  D.,  365 
IOP.D.,390 
10  P.  D.,  67 


Line  of  duty.  No.  6. 
Pathological  sequence,  No.  1. 
Rerating,  No.  6. 
Restoi-ation,  No.  2. 
Service,  No.  3. 

Do. 
Service,  No.  38. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (11). 


Abandonment,  No.  1. 
Practice,  No.  2. 
Rate  and  rating.  No.  13. 
Adulterous  cohabitation.  No.  3. 
Death  cause,  No.  3. 
Service,  No.  1. 
Service,  No.  8. 
Increase,  No.  1. 
Evidence,  No.  17. 
Line  of  duty.  No.  8. 
Accnied  pensions.  No.  2. 
Aid  and  attendance,  No.  1. 
Service,  No.  12. 
Line  of  duty.  No.  17. 
Dependent  widow,  No.  1. 
Vicious  habits.  No.  1. 
Commencement,  No.  4. 
Disability,  No.  3. 
Appeals,  No.  2. 
Marriage,  No.  4. 
Line  of  duty.  No.  1. 
Army  nurses.  Nor  1. 
Reduction,  No.  1. 
Limitation,  No.  2. 
Reduction,  No.  1. 
Discharge,  No.  2. 
Limitation,  No.  1. 
Rank,  No.  1. 
Declarations,  No.  5. 
Increase,  No.  2. 
Death  cause.  No.  4. 
Attorneys,  No.  4. 
Line  of  duty,  No.  5. 
Line  of  duty,  No.  6. 
Evidence,  No.  14. 
Practice,  No.  6. 
Evidence,  No.  10. 
Line  of  duty.  No.  4- 
Desertion,  No.  2.  ' 

Marriage,  No.  2  (a). 
Dependent  widow,  No.  1. 
Declarations,  No.  4. 
Rate  and  rating,  No.  2. 
Declarations,  No.  2. 
Practice,  Nos.  8  and  36. 
Dependent  widows,  No.  1. 


20  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Table  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  15,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


HaiTis,  Lucinda  (widow) 

Harshfield,  McKinzy 

Hartley,  William  (minors  of) 

Heininger,  Lewis  (attorney) 

Henderson,  Elizabeth  (widow) 

Higgins,  Annie  (widow) 

Hobson,  John  C.  (deceased) 

Hodgman,  Eliza  (mother) 

Hopper,  Pinckney 

Horan,  Mary  (mother) 

Hughes,  James  ( father) 

Hutchinson,  Calvin  A 

Hall,  Daniel  T.  (minors  of ) 

Hantch  v.  Hantch.. 

Harnden,  Margaret  E.  (widow) 

Harrington,  Harvey .- 

Harris  v.  Harris 

Harvey,  Lola  T 

Hendrickson,  Jos.  E 

Hickerson,  Chas.  W 

Hobart,  Edw.  L , 

Holtorf ,  John  C - 

Horn,  Myers  (minor  of) 

Howell,  Rebecca  C.  (widow) 

Hughes,  Jos.  B 

Human,  J.  M. 

Hunter,  Jos.  H.  (attorney) 

Huston,  Annie,  alias  Richardson 

Haines  v.  Haines .-. 

Hale,  A.  M.,  now  Butterbaugh  (widow). 

Hall,  James  C 

Hallett,  Emma  J.  (widow) 

Harriman,  R.  (widow) 

Hawke,  H.  L.  (widow) 

Hayes  V.  Hayes 

Head  v.  Head 

Hedgepeth,  K.  (widow) 

Henderson,  Jones  A 

Hilton,  Miel - 

Hogg  V.  Hogg 

Howard,  H.  D.  (widow) 

Hyndman,  L.  H.  (widow) .-- 

Hanley ,  William 

Heinkel,  Joseph 

Heininger,  Lewis  (attorney) 

Hendershot  v.  Hendershot 

Herbert,  Mary  C.  (widow) 

Hill,  Camden  L 

Hofrichter,  M.  A.  (widow) 

Hopkins,  Frances  (widow) 

Hunter  V.  Hunter .- 

Hyatt  V.  Hyatt 

Hyatt,  Fred  W 

Hosier,  L.J 

Humbtirt  V.  Humbert 


Volume  and  page,  t 

11  P.  D.,  181  1 

11  P.  D. 

492 

11  P.  D. 

40 

11  P.  D. 

508 

IIP.D. 

204 

11  P.  D. 

519 

11  P.  D. 

49 

11  P.  D. 

18 

11  P.  D. 

191 

11  P.  D. 

.514 

11  P.  D. 

325 

11  P.  D. 

51 

12  P.  D. 

1 

13  P.  D. 

44 

12  P.  D. 

278 

12  P.  D. 

109 

13  P.  D. 

7l 

12  P.  D. 

326 

12  P.  D. 

269 

12  P.  D. 

298 

12  P.  D. 

319 

12  P.  D. 

422 

12  P.  D. 

365 

12  P.  D. 

3(K) 

13  P.  D. 

137 

12  P.  D. 

5(J0 

12  P.  D. 

441 

12  P.  D. 

514 

13  P.  D. 

142 

13  P.  D. 

378 

13  P.  D. 

1 

13  P.  D. 

31 

13  P.  D. 

184 

13  P.  D. 

372 

13  P.  D. 

212 

13  P.  D. 

180 

13  P.  D. 

349 

13  P.  D. 

455 

13  P.  D. 

27 

13  P.  D. 

206 

13  P.  D. 

448 

13  P.  D. 

95 

14  P.  D. 

162 

14  P.  D. 

203 

14  P.  D. 

269 

14  P.  D. 

130 

14  P.  D. 

95 

14  P.  D. 

57 

14  P.  D. 

80 

14  P.  D. 

527 

14  P.  D. 

136 

14  P.  D. 

8 

14  P.  D. 

367 

1.5  P.  D. 

317 

15  P.  D. 

133 

Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Marriage,  No.  15. 
Attorneys,  No.  14. 
Legitimacy,  No.  4. 
Fee,  No.  1. 
Marriage,  No.  4. 
Appeals,  No.  4. 
Attorneys,  No.  12. 
Commencement,  No.  6. 
Line  of  duty,  No.  8. 
Fee,  No.  14. 
Practice,  No.  14. 
Increase,  No.  10. 
Gixardians,  No.  2. 
Practice,  No.  17. 
MaiTiage,  No.  12. 
Fee,  No.  7. 

Division  of  pension,  No.  4. 
Marriage,  No.  4. 
Line  of  duty.  No.  4. 
Origin,  No.  2. 
Disability,  No.  8. 
Pathological  sequence.  No.  4. 
Helpless  minor.  No.  3. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (gg). 
Desertion,  No.  5. 
Service,  No.  20. 
Fee,  No.  7. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (kk). 
Division  of  pension.  No.  4. 
Restoration,  No.  2. 
Origin,  No.  3 
Dependent  widow.  No.  3. 
Pathological  sequence.  No.  9. 
Death  cause.  No.  12. 
Division  of  jjension.  No.  4. 

Do. 
Disloyalty,  No.  11. 
Increase,  No.  5. 
Attorneys,  No.  13. 
Practice,  No.  20. 
Dependent  widow,  No.  4. 
Special  act.  No.  2. 
Practice,  No.  23. 
Line  of  duty.  No.  8. 
Attorneys,  No.  19. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  4. 
Increase,  No.  6, 
Fraud  and  mistake.  No.  1. 
Dependent  widow,  No.  4. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (g). 
Division  of  pension.  No.  13. 
Practice,  No.  26. 
Division  of  pension,  No.  15. 
Attorneys,  No.  18. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  18. 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  21 

Tabic  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  16,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Volume  and  page. 


Chapter  of  digest  and 
mdex  number. 


Herlong,  Millie  (widow) 

Hays,  R.,  formerly  Collier  (widow) 

Harris,  Adaline  (widow) -.. 

Hattersheim,  Johanna  (widow) 

Hughes,  Annie  (widow) 

Henley,  "William 

Hirsch,  Josephine  (mother) - 

Hyatt,  Fred  W 

Hawley,  Ella  S.  (widow) 

Hale,  Geo.  W 

Heazlit,  Melissa  D 

I. 

Instructions '.... 

Do 

Do -. 

Ingnams,  H.  A.  (widow). - 

Ingalls,  Laura  A.  (widow) 

J. 

Jacob,  EUza  (widow) 

Johannes,  Charles  "W 

Johnson,  John 

Johnson,  John  M 

Johnson,  "William  (minors  of ) 

Johnson,  John 

Johnson.  Simon  (minor  of ) ^.. 

Jones,  Mary  A  (widow) 

Janney,  Lee  K 

Johnson,  Ann  E.  (widow) 

Johnson,  Thomas  C :. 

Jones,  "William  H 

Jones,  "William  H - 

Juno,  Emily 

Jacobs,  Catharine 

Johnson ,  George 

Johnston,  M.  M.  (widow) 

Johnson,  John  L 

Jones  r.  Jones 

Jackson,  Jennie  L.  (widow) 

Jackson,  Mary  A.  (mother) 

Jackson  r.  Jackson -.. 

Jackson,  Betsey  (widow) -.. 

Johnson,  (jharles  (deceased) -.. 

K. 

Kelly,  Matilda  L.  (widow) 

Kelly,  Susan  (widow)  

King,  C.  &  "Wm.  B.  (attorneys) 

King,  Joseph  C -. 

Kurtz,  Gibhart 

Kent, Frederika  (widow) 

Kilbee,  Rebecca  (widow) 

Knowland,  James  T.,  &  Son  (attorneys) ... 

Kaufman,  Elizabeth  (widow) 

Kennedy,  Matilda  I.  (widow) ..- 

Kimball,  John  H 


15  P.  D. 

,371 

Identity,  No.  2 

15  P.  D. 

,186 

Marriage,  No.  2  (k). 

15  P.  D. 

,  30 

Marriage,  No.  15. 

15  P.  D. 

,464 

Marriage,  No.  2  (r). 

15  P.  D. 

,475 

Restoration ,  No .  5 . 

15  P.  D. 

,483 

Restoration,  No.  6. 

15  P.  D. 

,443 

Pathological  sequence,  No.  27. 

15  P.  D. 

,  96 

Practice,  No.  1. 

15  P.  D. 

,493 

Marriage,  No.  2(e). 

15  P.  D. 

,544 

Service,  No.  4. 

15P.D. 

,553 

Divorce,  No.  9. 

9P.D. 

,  93 

Declarations,  No.  1. 

10  P.  D. 

,465 

Minors,  No.  3. 

11  P.  D. 

,   12 

Service,  No.  10. 

13  P.  D. 

,173 

Marriage,  No.  15. 

14  P.  D. 

,198 

Restoration,  No.  2. 

9P.D. 

,213 

Attorneys,  No.  9. 

9P.D. 

,341 

Disability,  No.  11. 

9P.D. 

349 

Aid  and  attendance.  No.  1, 

9P.D. 

,5a3 

Commencement,  No.  2. 

9P.D. 

452 

Helpless  minor.  No.  1. 

10  P.  D 

66 

Commencement,  No.  2. 

10  P.  D. 

,417 

Limitation,  No.  4. 

10  P.  D. 

,297 

Marriage,  No.  3  (b). 

11  P.  D. 

,5ft5 

Disability,  No.  6. 

12  P.  D. 

425 

Pathological  sequence.  No.  1. 

12  P.  D. 

59 

Increase,  No.  4. 

12  P.  D. 

215 

Aid  and  attendance,  No.  2. 

12  P.  D. 

,525 

Fee,  No.  19. 

12  P.  D. 

,354 

Death  cause,  No.  8. 

13  P.  D. 

,  59 

Marriage,  No.  2  (w). 

13  P.  D. 

,  46 

Service,  No  27. 

13  P.  D. 

,112 

Pathological  sequence,  No.  15. 

14  P.  D. 

,296 

Service,  No.  3. 

14  P.  D. 

,521 

Division  of  pension.  No.  4. 

15  P.  D. 

,a54 

Death  cause.  No.  2. 

15  P.  D. 

,100 

Dependent  parents,  No.  2. 

15  P.  D. 

,218 

Division  of  pension.  No.  15. 

15  P.  D. 

,  11 

Marriage,  No.  15. 

15  P.  D. 

,539 

Declarations,  No.  9. 

9P.D. 

,201 

Evidence,  No  1(. 

9P.D. 

,418 

Do. 

9P.D. 

478 

Attorneys,  No.  17. 

9P.D. 

430 

Restoration,  No.  3. 

9P.D. 

204 

Increase,  No.  9. 

10  P.  D. 

211 

Marriage,  No.  2  (ee). 

10  P.  D. 

286 

Adulterous  cohabitation,  No.  4 

10  P.  D. 

143 

Attorneys,  No.  1. 

11  P.  D. 

106 

Death  cau.se,  No.  5. 

11  P.  D. 

110 

Service,  No.  4. 

P.D.,124 

136 

Disloyalty,  No.  5. 

22 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


Table  of  cuscfi  reported  in  volumes  9  to  lo,  pension  decisions,  etc — Continued. 


Name. 


Volume  and  page. 


Chapter  of  digest  and 
mdex  number. 


Kinsey ,  Jonathan 

Kirkland,  Martha  J.  (widow) 

Koschwitz,  Augusta  M.  (widow) 

Keiler,  Anna  M.  (widow) 

Kirchner,  H.  (widow) 

Kohler,  Adam - 

Kilmer  v.  Kilmer 

Kingsley,  H.  (widow) 

Kuhn,  M.  (mother) 

Kane,  Luther  C 

Kelley,  James  H 

Kendall  r.  Kendall 

King,  Jonathan 

Kite,  John.. 

Kyle,  James  T.  (minors  of  i 

Kelley,  Aaron  W 

Kinter,  Christian 

Kraft,  Caroline  (widow) 

I.. 

Laughlin,  John 

Lee,  Shadi*ack 

Leonard,  E.  S 

Levan,  Daniel  "W 

Lewis,  Rollin-. 

Ligon,  Edward  H 

Limoges,  Adolphus 

Luckingbeal,  Judith  S.  (widow) 

Lalone,  Margaret  (widow) 

La  Mountain,  John 

Lane,  Joseph,  alias  Simpson 

Lewis,  Joseph 

Lockwood,  Elizabeth  (widow) 

Loeb,  Nathan,  alias  Lyons 

Long,  Adaline  (widow) 

Loughry,  Sophia  M.,  v.  John  Loughry 

Lake,  William  (deceased ) 

Larkins,  E.  (sister  of ) 

Leslie,  John  P 

Lester,  M.  N,  (widow) 

Lake  v.  Lake 

Livengood  v.  Livengood 

Dynch,  Annie  (widow) 

Lynch  r.  Lynch 

Lawrence,  James  M 

Lamb,  E.  S.,  formerly  Griswold 

Landon,  Charles  E. 

Lara  way,  A.  E.  (widow) 

Lawley,  Lewis 

Lester,  Mazilla  (widow) 

Lockard  v.  Lockard 

Lutes,  N.  C.  (widow) 

Lynch,  G.  W. 

Lewis,  William  C 

Lyon,  Mary  E.  (widow) 


11  P.  D.,  113 
11  P.  D,,  73 

11  P.  D.,  102 

12  P.  D., 491 
12  P.  D.,  296 

12  P.  D.,  407 

13  P.  D., 270 
13  P.  D.,  441 

13  P.  D., 241 

14  P.  D.,  328 
14  P.  D.,  104 

14  P.  D.,  159 
14  P.  D., 466 
14  P.  D.,  269 

14  P.  D.,  186 

15  P.  D.,  402 
15  P.  D.,  440 
15  P.  D.,  495 

9P.D.,466 

9  P.  D.,  214 

9  P.  D.,  194 

9P.D.,322 

9  P.  D.,  216 

9P.D.,366 

9  P.  D., 274 

9P.D.,  42 

11  P.  D.,  301 

11  P.  D,  395 

11  P.  D.,  422 

11  P.  D.,  473 

11  P.  D.,  97 

IIP.D.,286 

11  P.  D.,  499 

11  P.  D.,  52;^ 

12  P.  D., 405 
12  P.  D.,  184 
12  P.  D.,  367 

12  P.  D., 340 

13  P.  D.,  22 
13  P.  D.,  134 
13  P.  D.,  54 
13  P.  D., 347 

13  P.  D.,  395 

14  P.  D.,  Ill 
14  P.  D.,  83 
14  P.  D., 212 
14  P.  D.,  13 
14  P.  D.,  38 
14  P.  D.,  45 
14  P.  D.,  281 

14  P.  D.,  155 

15  P.  D.,  163 
15  P.  D.,  174 


Practice,  No.  6. 

Marriage,  No.  14. 

Evidence,  No.  9. 

Pathological  sequence,  No.  5. 

Marriage,  No.  1. 

Service,  No.  21. 

Division  of  pension,  No.  15. 

Restoration,  No.  4. 

Dependent  parents.  No.  4. 

Attorneys,  No.  10. 

Disloyalty,  No.  10;  Accrued  pen- 
sion. No.  10. 

Division  of  pension.  No.  4. 

Desertion,  No.  4  (b). 

Attorneys,  No.  19. 

Attorneys,  No.  1. 

Amputation,  No.  2. 

Pathological  sequence,  No.  26. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (gg). 

Service,  No.  7. 

Evidence,  No.  6. 

Service,  No.  7. 

Commencement,  No.  8. 

Commencement,  No.  1. 

Disloyalty,  No.  1. 

Line  of  duty.  No.  2. 

Declarations,  No.  2. 

Evidence,  No.  12. 

Reimbui*sement,  No.  4. 

Attorneys,  No.  18, 

Aid  and  attendance.  No.  3. 

Marriage,  No  2  (n). 

Age,  No.  2. 

Divorce,  No.  4. 

Evidence,  No.  11. 

Accrued  pensions.  No.  6, 

Bounty  land.  No.  1 . 

Service,  No.  10. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (bb). 

Payment  of  pension.  No.  3. 

Division  of  pension.  No.  4. 

Evidence,  No.  10. 

Division  of  pension.  No.  12,  and 
Practice,  No.  10. 

Disloyalty,  No.  11. 

Restoration,  No.  2. 

Attorneys,  No.  4. 

Marriage  No.  2  (gg). 

Service,  No.  3. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (qq). 

Division  of  pen.sion.  No.  4. 

Dependent  widow.  No.  4. 

Increase,  No.  7. 

Attorneys,  No.  6. 

Divorce,  No.  2. 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  23 

Table  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  15,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Volume  and  page. 

8P.D. 

,  43 

9P.D. 

,338 

9P.D. 

,255 

9P.D. 

,150 

9P.D. 

,401 

9P.D. 

,437 

9P.D. 

,442 

9P.D. 

,344 

9P.D. 

,333 

9P.D. 

,  74 

9P.D. 

,209 

9P.D. 

,  55 

9P.D. 

,492 

9P.D. 

,353 

9P.D. 

,462 

9P.D. 

,  :« 

9P.D. 

,  30 

9P.D. 

,123 

9P.D. 

,210 

9P.D. 

,  38 

10  P.  D. 

,118 

10  P.  D. 

,172 

10  P.  D. 

,  18 

10  P.  D. 

,  72 

10  P.  D. 

,281 

10  P.  D. 

,  52 

10  P.  D. 

,109 

10  P.  D. 

,401 

10  P.  D. 

,182 

10  P.  D. 

,157 

10  P.  D. 

,  78 

10  P.  D. 

,  12 

10  P.  D. 

,101 

10  P.  D. 

,464 

10  P.  D. 

,425 

10  P.  D. 

61 

11  P.  D. 

,175 

11  P.  D. 

,218 

11  P.  D. 

,510 

11  P.  D. 

494 

11  P.  D. 

165 

11  P.  D. 

427 

11  P.  D. 

380 

11  P.  D. 

55 

11  P.  D. 

28 

11  P.  D. 

392 

11  P.  D. 

496 

11  P.  D. 

215 

11  P.  D. 

84 

11  P.  D. 

193 

11  P.  D. 

220 

11  P.  D. 

183 

11  P.  D. 

307 

11  P.  D. 

315 

Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


M. 

McElhaney  (minors) 

McBride,  Anna  L.  (widow) 

McCallan,  James. 

McCollum,  JohnN. 

McElroy,  Alex.  P.. 

McFadger,  Henry 

McGraw,  Daniel 

Mallon,  Thomas 

Matthews,  Robert  W. 

Miller,  Henry 

Miller,  Mary  A.  (colored) 

Moore,  Edward  W 

Moran,  Margaret  (widow) 

Morris,  EUie  ( widow) 

Morris,  Walter 

MulhoUan,  James  M 

Munsell,  Mary  (widow) 

Miirphy,  Dennis 

Murray,  James  W 

Musser,  W.  H.  (attoraey) 

McCarthy,  Maria  (widow) 

Mcintosh,  Eppenetus  W 

McQuay ,  Charles 

Mackrill,  Henry,  alias  Mackey 

Mattick,  Joshua  W 

May,  Sarah  J.  (widow) 

Mays,  Benjamin  R.  (insane)  .. 

Means,  David  M 

Meeker,  John  H.. 

Merritt,  Maria  (widow) 

Mong,  Eliza  R.  (mother) 

Monteton,  W.  K.  (widow) 

Monty,  Sarah  H.  (widow) 

Morris,  J.  W.  (attorney) 

Morrison,  Mary  F 

Muckenstorm,  Joseph 

McClain,  William.. 

McGinniss,  Thomas 

McHarry,  James. 

McKee,  E.,  v.  J.  H.  McKee 

Mallory ,  Niram  W 

Manwell,  Sarah  E.  (widow) 

Mark  wood,  Robert 

Marstellar,  J.  S.  (minor  of)  ... 

Meade,  Catharine  (widow) 

Myers,  Anne  E.  (widow) 

Miller,  David  G.  (minors  of) . . 

Mitchell,  G.  W.  (attorney) 

Mitchell,  William  D 

Monthony,  Stephen  F 

Morgan,  Rebecca  C.  (widow)  . 

Morse,  L.  De  Witt 

Mowery,  George  W 

Myers,  Felix 


Abandonment,  No.  1. 

Attorneys,  No.  15. 

Desertion,  No.  6. 

Evidence,  No.  3. 

Increase,  No.  1. 

Nonresidents,  No.  1. 

Desertion,  No.  3. 

Reduction,  No.  2. 

Evidence,  No.  2. 

Line  of  duty,  No.  18. 

Marriage,  No.  7. 

Guardians,  No.  1. 

Death  cause,  No.  1. 

Helpless  minor,  No.  1. 

Service,  No.  10. 

Attorneys,  No.  5. 

Marriage,  No.  10. 

Discharge,  No.  2. 

Practice,  No.  7. 

Attorneys,  No.  5. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (a). 

Aid  and  attendance,  No.  2. 

Service,  No.  16. 

Disloyalty,  No.  1 . 

Payment  of  pension,  No.  2. 

Pathological  sequence.  No.  1. 

Insane  person.  No.  1. 

Service,  No.  11. 

Service,  No.  7. 

Marriage,  No.  15 

Dependent  parents.  No.  2. 

Marriage,  No.  16. 

Contributory  negligence,  No.  1. 

Fee,  No.  13. 

Service,  No.  4. 

Election,  No.  1. 

Commencement,  No.  5. 

Service,  No.  4. 

Commencement,  No.  1. 

Division  of  pension,  No.  5. 

Rate  and  rating.  No.  6. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (flf) 

Commencement,  No.  8. 

Line  of  duty.  No.  10. 

Line  of  duty,  No.  12. 

Attorneys,  No.  7;  Fee,  No.  17. 

Fee,  No.  16. 

Fee,  No.  15. 

Line  of  duty.  No.  11. 

Desertion,  No.  5;  Age,  No.  2. 

Death  cause,  No.  5. 

Board  of  enrollment.  No.  1. 

Pathological  sequence.  No.  20. 

Declarations,  No.  2. 


24 


PENSION   AND  BOUNTY-LAND  CLAIMS. 


Table  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  15,  pension  decisioms,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Volume  and  page . 


Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Mclnturf,  L.  W 

Macentee,  J.  J 

Maddox,  M.  (widow) 

Marshall,  James 

Medley  v.  Medley 

Merriman,  M.  (widow) 

Millard  V.  Millard 

Mills,  Caroline  (widow) 

Moody,  L.  J.  (deceased) 

Moore,  William 

Morman,  M.  (insane  widow) 

Mulick,  John  G 

McCracken,  William 

McKenney,E.  (mother) 

Mallon,  Patrick  (deceased) 

Marsh,  Mary  (as  widow) 

Martin  v.  Martin 

Mellinger,  A.  G 

Melton  V.  Melton 

Merryman,  R 

Miller,  Hezekiah 

Morgan,  Josiah 

Murray,  E.  8 

Manson,  A.  M.  (widow) 

Marshall,  M.  J.  (widow) 

Marvin,  Isaac 

Mathers,  S.,n6e  Miller  (widow). 

Mechling,  H.  C 

Medlock,  Rebecca  (widow) 


Middleton,  John 

Miller,  S.,  now  Mathers  (widow) 

Moer,  EUenA.  (widow) 

Morley  t\  Morley 

Morman,  Thomas  J 

Morrill,  E.  J.  (widow) , 

Morris,  Sion 

McMurtry,  William  P- 

Muller,  Marie  D.  (widow) 

Mitchell  V.  Mitchell 

Mann  v.  Mann 

Meister  (formerly  Jordan)  v  Jordan 

Munier  v.  Munier 

Matson,  Eliza  (widow) 

Mobley,  Harrison 

Moore,  John  V  -.. 

Messenger,  Emma  W 

Mellen,  Stella  A.  (widow) 

Monson,  William  B 

McAllister.  Alex 

Mitchell,  Mary  E.  (widow) 


Nichols,  Hilkiah  P.  (deceased) 

Norton,  John 

Nash,  De  Witt  C 


12  P.  D. 
12  P. 
12  P. 
12  P. 
12  P 
12  P 
12  P 
12  P 
12  P. 
12  P 
12  P 

12  P. 

13  P. 
13  P 
13  P 
13  P. 
13  P 
13  P 
13  P 
13  P 
13  P, 
13  P, 
13  P 
UP, 
UP. 
UP. 
UP, 
UP 
UP 


14  P.  D. 
U  P.  D. 
UP.D. 
UP.D. 
UP.D. 
U  P.  D. 

15  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 


9P.D.,336 
9P.D.,382 
10  P.  D.,  141 


Aid  and  attendance.  No.  2. 

Line  of  duty.  No.  6. 

Marriage,  No.  15. 

Fee,  No.  11. 

Division  of  pension.  No.  10. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (o). 

Division  of  pension.  No.  9. 

Minors,  No.  5. 

Rerating,  No.  1. 

Increase,  No.  3. 

Dependent  widow.  No.  2. 

Service,  No.  16. 

Appeals,  No.  6. 

Dependent  parents,  No.  4. 

Increase,  No.  5. 

Marriage,  No.  4. 

Division  of  pension,  No.  4. 

Line  of  duty,  No.  15. 

Practice,  No.  10. 

Fee,  No.  17. 

Fee,  No.  21. 

Practice,  No.  19. 

Fee,  No.  20. 

Marriage,  JNo.  2  (q). 

Divorce,  No.  6. 

Desertion,  No.  4  (f). 

Restoration,  No.  2. 

Practice,  No.  25. 

Accrued  pensions,   No.  11;  dis- 
loyalty, No.  10. 

Commencement,  No.  3. 

Restoration,  No.  3. 

Do. 
Division  of  pension,  No.  15. 
Honorable  discharge.  No.  1. 
Marriage,  No.  4. 
Bounty  land.  No.  2. 
Desertion,  No.  4  (a). 
Desertion,  No.  4  (e). 
Division  of  pension,  No.  1. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  4. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  13. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  18. 
Estoppel,  No.  4. 
Evidence,  No.  14. 
Fee,  No.  17. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (11). 
Marriage,  No.  11. 
Rate  and  rating.  No.  8. 
Service,  No.  3. 

Do. 


Rate  and  i-ating.  No.  5. 
Desertion,  No.  1. 
Desertion,  No.  3. 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  25 

Table  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  15,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Volume  and  page. 


Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Newberry,  Sarah  (widow) 

Newhard,  Edmund  R 

Norbury,  Charles,  alias  William  Walker. 

Napier,  Edward  E 

Notman,  Annie  (widow) 

Neary,  John  E 

Newland,  Mary  (as  widow) : 

Nicholas,  Mary  (widow) 

Nichols,  B.  F.  (widow) 

Nolen,  Nancy  (widow) 

Noble,  Mary  E.  (widow) -. 

Nutt  V.  Nutt 


O. 


Oram,  James  E 

Orr,  Mary  C.  (widow) 

Otis,  Dora  V.,  now  Cowley 

O'Grady,  A.,  alias  John  Davis. 

Orr,  Mary  C 

Otis,  Doi*a  v.,  now  Crowley  ... 

O'Brien,  Nora  (widow) 

Orr,  Adelbert  L 

Overocker,  G.  H 

Ogden,  Bettie  (widow) 

O'Horo,  Lydia  E.  (widow) 

Ouslem,  Elizabeth  (widow)  ... 
Owen,  John  R 


P. 

Payne,  Spencer 

Peniston.  Susan  C.  (widow) 

Pepper,  Helen  L.  (widow) 

Perry,  Noah 

Peters,  Galen '. 

Phillips,  H.  D.  (attorney) 

Polk,  James  K.  (attorney) 

Poarch,  Emma  A.  (widow) 

Porter,  Lucy  P.  (widow) 

Powers,  Mary  E.  (widow) 

Patterson,  Martha  (widow) 

Paul,  Jacob i 

Pearson,  Sophia  (widow) 

Pennoy er.  Garrison  (father) 

Phillips,  H.  D.  (attorney) 

Pulver,  Jonas  W.  (minors  of) 

Purnell,  Mollie  (widow) 

Parmer,  Esther  A.  (widow) 

Parker,  May  E.,  now  Resdin 

Peterman,  Benj.  F , 

Peterson,  Carrie  (widow) 

Pruett,  Lorenzo 

Pain,  Fred,  alias  H.  Foreman 

Palmer,  A.  M.,  now  Umberger  (widow) 

Patterson,  F.  A.,  nee  Osier  (widow) 

Payne,  John  W 

Penman,  E.,  now  Fulmer  (as  widow) 


10  P.  D., 294 
10  P.  D.,  80 

10  P.  D.,  261 

11  P.  D.,  240 
11  P.  D.,  212 
13  P.  D.,  437 
13P.D.,338 
13  P.  D.,  286 
13  P.  D., 330 
13  P.  D.,  64 
14P.D.,535 
14P.D.,338 


9  P.  D.,  132 
10  P.  D., 348 

10  P.  D.,  324 

11  P.  D.,  420 

11  P.  D.,  131 
IIP.D.,338 

12  P.  D.,  32 
12  P.  D., 394 
12P.D.,208 
13P.D.,  57 
15P.D.,227 
15  P.  D.,  347 
15  P.  D.,  158 


9P.D.,  50 
9  P.  D.,  178 
9P.D.,500 
9P.D.,237 
9  P. D.,  102 
P.  D., 338, 377 
9  P.  D.,  137 
9P.D.,420 
9  P.  D., 251 
9  P.  D.,  369 
10  P.  D.,  8 
10  P.  D.,  421 
lOP.D.,  6 
10  P.  D., 362 
10  P.  D.,  250 
10  P.  D., 227 

10  P.  D.,  431 

11  P.  D.,  320 
11  P.  D.,  103 
IIP.D.,344 

11  P.  D.,  139 
IIP.D.,290 
12P.D.,a51 

12  P.  D.,  510 
12  P.  D  ,5,29 

12  P.  D.,  12 
12  P.  D..  459 


Marriage,  No.  3  (a). 
Evidence,  No.  8. 
Rate  and  rating,  No.  2. 
Age,  No.  2. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (bb). 
Evidence,  No.  1. 
Marriage,  No.  10. 
Restoration,  No.  2. 
Service,  No.  24. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (o). 
Divorce,  No.  1. 
Division  of  pension,  No.  18. 


Appeals,  No.  1. 
Divorce,  No.  2. 
Remarriage,  No.  1. 
Declarations,  No.  6. 
Marriage,  No.  13. 
RemaiTiage,  No.  1. 
Marriage,  No.  12. 
Reimbursement,  No.  4. 
Accrued  pension,  No.  7. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (v). 
Decree  of  nullity,  No.  6. 
Evidence,  No.  10. 
Service,  No.  4. 


Notice,  No.  1;  Disloyalty,  No.  7. 

Service,  No.  3. 

Evidence,  No.  10. 

Evidence,  No.  4. 

Commencement,  No.  1. 

Attorneys,  No.  15;  Pee,  No.  7. 

Attorneys,  No.  11. 

Double  pension,  No.  1. 

Marriage,  No.  14. 

Service,  No.  4. 

Service,  No.  10. 

Limitation,  No.  3. 

Evidence,  No.  10. 

Marriage,  No.  15. 

Appeals,  No.  3. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (rr). 

Marriage,  No.  2  (r). 

Marriage,  No.  3  (a). 

Line  of  duty.  No.  9. 

Evidence,  No.  16. 

Marriage,  No.  3  (c). 

Disloyalty,  No.  5. 

Service,  No.  18. 

Restoration,  No.  2. 

Pee,  No.  18. 

Disloyalty,  No.  7. 

Death  cause.  No.  9. 


26  PENSION  AND  BOUNTY-LAND  CLAIMS. 

Table  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  15,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Voltune  and  page. 


Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Pierce,  I.  A.,  v.  C.  I*ierce 

Parcell,  Catherine  (widow) 

Parker  t'.  Parker 

Perkins,  H.  (minors  of) 

Peterson,  D.  Q 

Phillips,  H.  D.  (attorney) 

Pick  V.  Pick 

Pierson,  A.  B.  (minors  of) 

Plount,  Edward  (minors  of) 

Pomeroy,  F.  G.  (widow). 

Powell  V.  Powell 

Prather,  L.  H 

Prentice,  George  W 

Parcell,  Catherine  ( widow ) 

Parker,  Charles  W 

Patrick,  A.  J 

Perkins,  Cyrus  E.  (attorney) 

Phillips,  S.,  now  Clark  (widow) 

Pitkin,  Ruth  A.,  nee  Bugbee  (widow) 

Plount,  Edward  (minor  of) 

Post  V.  Post 

Parkman,  Rosanna  (widow) 

Q. 
Quinn,  John 

R. 

Ruthton,  Nancy  Oridow) 

Reed,  Charles  L 

Rees,  Nixon 

Reig,  ThaddeusP 

Ridgeway,  Basil  T 

Robins,  Levi  (minors  of) 

Robinson,  Abner 

Rogers,  William 

Rogers,  William  P 

Ross,  William 

Roth,  Wilhelmina  (widow) 

Rusling,  James  F.  (attorney) 

Ryan,  Philip  E 

Radwich,  Imre 

Rappleye,  Milton  W 

Resser,  Charles  W.  (minors  of) 

Resser,  Mary  E.  (widow). 

Richardson,  Kate  E.  (widow) 

Riddle,  Mary  (widow) 

Rodkey,  Elmer  A.  (helpless  minor)... 

Rohn,  Preston  M 

Root,  Fay  F.  (attorney) 

Rose,  James 

Ruddick,  Lindley 

Rupp,  Rosa  (widow) 

Rainey,  James  H 

Rankin,  Lewis 

Ratcliffe,  Kathryne  A.  (mother) 

Richards  V.  Richards 

Riddle,  Lewis 


12  P.  D., 412 

13  P.  D.,  450 
13  P.  D.,  233 
13  P.  D.,  414 
13  P.  D., 346 
13  P.  D.,  25 
13P.D.,299 
13  P.  D.,  151 
13  P.  D., 541 
13  P.  D.,  342 
13  P.  D.,  236 
13  P.  D.,  13 

13  P.  D., 242 

14  P.  D.,  63 
14  P.  D., 388 
14  P.  D., 357 
14  P.  D,  256 
14  P.  D., 213 
14  P.  D., 438 
14  P.  D., 428 

14  P.  D.,  177 

15  P.  D., 411 

11  P.  D.,  25 


9  P.  D.,  162 

9P.D.,288 

9P.D.,4a5 

9P.D.,444 

9P.D.,300 

9P.D.,  40 

9  P.  D.,  362 

9P.D.,399 

9P.D.,  96 

9  P.  D.,  407 

9  P.  D.,  143 

9P.D.,  39 

9  P.  D.,  289 

10  P.  D.,  68 

10  P.  D.,  464 

10  P.  D., 266 

10  P.  D.,  266 

10  P.  D., 409 

10  P.  D.,  441 

IOP.D.,224 

10  P.  D.,  73 

10  P.  D.,  167 

10  P.  D.,  357 

10  P.  D., 217 

10  P.  D.,  14 

11  P.  D.,  327 
11  P.  D.,  373 
11  P.  D.,  171 
11  P.  D.,  90 
IIP.D.,252 


Division  of  pension.  No.  8. 
Evidence,  No,  7. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  13. 
Legitimacy,  No.  6. 
Desertion,  No.  4  (c). 
Fee,  No.  20. 
Practice,  No,  32. 
Minors,  No.  2. 
Legitimacy,  No.  8. 
Death  cause,  No.  14. 
Divorce,  No.  3. 
Reimbursement,  No.  4. 
Commencement,  No.  1. 
Service,  No.  8. 
Service,  No.  38. 
Service,  No.  4. 
Fee,  No.  24. 
Line  of  duty.  No.  14. 
Divorce,  No.  5. 
Legitimacy,  No.  8. 
Division  of  pension.  No.  18. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (ii). 

Attorneys,  No.  9. 


Service,  No.  8. 

Practice,  No.  7. 

Rate  and  rating.  No.  8. 

Pathological  sequence,  No.  1. 

Service,  No.  7. 

Declarations,  No.  2. 

Service,  No.  9. 

Practice,  No.  1. 

Service,  No.  11. 

Desertion,  No.  2. 

Service,  No.  3. 

Fee,  No.  2. 

Service,-  No.  22. 

Service,  No.  15. 

Fee,  No.  13. 

Marriage,  No.  10. 

Do. 
Marriage,  No.  4. 
Marriage,  No.  15. 
Helpless  minor.  No.  3. 
Practice,  No.  9. 
Fee,  No.  12. 
Fee,  No.  9. 
Line  of  duty.  No.  3. 
Discharge,  No.  1. 
Disloyalty,  No.  5. 
Desertion,  No.  3  (a). 
Dependent  parents.  No.  2. 
Construction  of  statutes.  No.  1. 
Disloyalty,  No.  5. 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  27 

Table  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  15,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Volume  and  page. 


Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Robinson,  John  S 

Rosser,  William  H.  (attorney) 

Rothery,  Henry  N 

Rothery  v.  Rothery 

Do - 

Rusling,  James  F.  (attorney) - 

Ramsey,  M.  D.  (widow) -• 

Redbird,  Jack  (minor  of) -  . 

Reese,  M.  L.  (widow) 

Renick,  Silas 

Rioe,  M.  E.,  nee  Paulding  (widow) 

Ross,  Lucinda  (widow).  -- 

Robinson,  G.  W.  (minor) 

Randall  v.  Randall 

Randall,  H.  (widow)... 

Reed,  Harvey 

Reed,  Rebecca  (widow) 

Rich,  H.  C.  (widow) 1 

Ritter  v.  Ritter 

Robinson,  Ruth  E.  (widow) 

Rumrill,  Clara  M.  (widow) -- 

Rankins,  Betty  (widow) 

Rhodes,  William  H 

Ricketts,  John  H 

Robertson,  George  P 

Robinson,  A.  (widow) 

Robinson,  C.  (widow) 

Robinson,  Lewis  ( widow  of) 

Rumsey,  H.  A.  (widow) 

Ryerson,  A.  E.  (widow) 

Romero,  Antonio 

Ribera,  Jose  L.  (attorney) 

Robb,  Elizabeth  (widow) 

Reser,  John  W 

Richardson,  Nathan 

Riley,  Emma  (as  widow) 

Raymond  v.  Raymond 

Russell,  Charles  F 

Reed,  Sarah  M.  (widow) 

Ritchie,  Celinda,  formerly  Dolan  (widow) 

Rebenstorf ,  Chris.  ( guardian ) 

Russell,  Abram  J 

Raymonds.  Raymond 

S. 

Sarver,  Barnabas 

Shreeve,  Thei-esa,  now  Schmidt 

Scott,  Samuel 

Sharer,  David  S.  (minors  of) 

Sharon,  John  H.  (deceased) 

Shinguin,  Charles  E 

Sims,  Wright 

Smith,  Elizabeth  (widow) - 

Smith,  Katie  (minor) 

Smith,  Nana  J.  (widow) 

Smith,  Sarah  J.  (widow) 


UP, 
IIP 
UP, 
IIP 
IIP 
11  P.  D., 
12  P 
12  P 
12  P 
12  P 

12  P 

13  P 

12  P 

13  P 
18  P 
13  P 
13  P 
13  P 
13  P 
13  P 

13  P, 

14  P, 
UP 
UP. 
UP, 
UP 
UP, 
UP 
UP 
UP 

15  P 
15  P, 
15  P, 
15  P 
15  P 
15  P 
15  P 
15  P 
15  P 
15  P 
15  P 
15  P 
15  P 


D.,390 
D.,U9 
D.,255 

.D.,  77 
D.,377 

150,514 
D.,  89 
D.,517 
D.,111 
D.,  21 
D.,1U 

.D..474 
D.,511 

.D.,411 
D.,237 
D.,307 
D.,  70 
D.,118 
D.,  40 
D.,153 
D.,213 
D.,383 
D.,273 
D.,283 
D.,3B4 
D.,476 
D.,537 
D.,436 
D.,290 
D.,497 
D.,184 
D.,184 
D.,106 
D.,  8 
D.,  76 
D.,389 
D.,298 
D.,364 
D.,462 
D.,470 
D.,  28 
D.,139 
D.,496 


9P.D.,294 
9P.D.,  78 
9P.D.,  70 
9  P.  D.,  189 
9  P.  D., 272 
9P.D.,119 
9  P. D.,  158 
9P.D.,324 
9  P.  D.,  199 
9  P.  D., 359 
9P.D.,266 


Service,  No.  18. 

Fee,  No.  4. 

Division  of  pension,  No.  3. 

Construction  of  statutes,  No.  1. 

Division  of  pension,  No.  1. 

Fee,  No.  14;  Fee  agi'eem.ent,No.  1. 

Death  cause,  No.  7.  ' 

Marriage,  No.  11. 

Evidence,  No.  10. 

Notice,  No.  2. 

Restoration,  No.  2. 

Divorce,  No.  7. 

Age,  No.  3;  Minors,  No.  2. 

Division  of  pension,  No.  11. 

Service,  No.  22. 

Pathological  sequence,  No.  14. 

Marriage,  No.  15. 

Restoration,  No.  2. 

Practice,  No.  10. 

Pathological  sequence,  No,  8. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (z). 

Marriage,  Nos.  2  (h)  and  15. 

Attorneys,  No.  10. 

Discharge,  No.  1. 

Practice,  No.  24. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (v). 

Marriage,  No.  15. 

Do. 
Decree  of  nullity,  No.  5. 
Marriage,  No.  13. 
Attorneys,  No.  3. 

Do. 
Dependent  parents,  No.  3. 
Desertion,  No.  4  (g). 
Disloyalty,  No.  1. 
Divorce,  No.  9. 
Division  of  pension,  No.  15. 
Guardians,  No.  3. 
Marriage,  No.  2  (s). 
Decree  of  nullity,  No.  8. 
Minors,  No.  2. 

Pathological  sequence,  No.  25. 
Division  of  pension,  No.  13. 

Disloyalty,  No.  1. 
Marriage,  No.  4. 
Amputation,  No.  1 
Commencement,  No.  1. 
Declarations,  No.  2. 
Service,  No.  5. 
Service,  No.  8, 

Adulterous  cohabitation,  No.  1. 
Legitimacy,  No.  1. 
Death  cause.  No.  2. 
Do. 


28  PENSIOK  AND  BOUNTY-LAND  CLAIMS. 

Table  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  15,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Spitzer,  Gottlieb,  alias  Brunner... 
Springston,  John  L.  (attorney)  ... 

Stafford,  John  L 

Stetzell,  Frances  (widow) 

Stevens,  M.  B.,  &  Co.  (attorneys). 

Stine,  Jasper  N 

Stoker,  Mary  J.  (widow) 

Salmon,  Abbie  (widow) 

Sampson,  Charles  A 

Schubert,  John  (deceased) '... 

Scott,  Reuben  F 

Shinaugh,  Calvan. 

Short,  John  W 

Siler,  Isabel  W.  (widow) 

South,  George  A 

Springston,  John  L.  (attorney)  ... 
Stevens,  M.  B.,  &  Co.  (attorneys) . 


Volume  and  page. 


Stives,  Nancy  A.  (widow) 

Stockwell,  Sarah  O.  (mother)  — 

Storms,  Mary  J.  (widow) 

Sullivan,  Sarah  A.  (widow) 

Sullivan,  Sarah  F.,  now  Morris  ... 
Sandei*s,  Emma  C,  now  Stewart . 

Sanguinette,  Ambrose  T 

Schrater,  Mary  J.  (widow) 

Sebastian,  Rachel  J.  (widow) 

Shipp,  Annie  M.  (widow) 

Slagle,  Mary  C.  (widow) 

Smith,  Rose  E.  (widow) 

Smith,  William 

Stephens,  Edward  W 

Stephens,  Russell. 

Stevens,  M.  B.,  &  Co.  (attorneys). 


Strickland,  Corinne  R.  (widow) 

Samuels,  F.  M.,  alias  Charles  Smith 

Sanford,  Sai*ah  (widow) 

Schneider,  E.  (widow) 

Scott  r.  Scott 

Sherwood,  E.  (widow) 

Silman,  J.  D 

Smith  V.  Smith 

Smith,  Edgar  G 

Smith,  Robert  A 

Smith,  Susan  (widow) 

Snowman,  C.  W. 

Sousa,  E.  (widow) 

Staples,  Charles 

Starr,  Charles  L 

Stevens,  Milo  B.,  &  Co.  (attorneys). 


Still,  James,  alias  James  (minors  of) . 
Stombaugh,  C.  A.  (minor  D.  T.  Hall). 

Savage,  Franklin 

Sharkey  v.  Sharkey 


9P.D.,  83 

9P.D.,355 

9  P.  D., Ill 

9P.D.,     9 

9  P.  D.,  170, 375 

9P.D.,488 

9P.D.,5()6 

10  P.  D.,  389 

10  P.  D., 458 

10  P.  D.,  196 

10  P.  D.,  256 

10  P.  D., 210 

10  P.  D.,  143 

10  P.  D.,     1 

10  P.  D.,  31 

10  P.  D.,  146 

10  P.  D.,  150, 
198, 236,  .357, 
403,421,428 

10  P.  D.,  9) 

10  P.  D., 428 

10  P.  D.,  192 

10  P.  D.,  55 

10  P.  D.,  179 

11  P.  D.,  114 

11  P.  D.,  4.51 

11  P.  D.,  501 

11  P.  D.,  144 

IIP.D.,226 

IIP.D.,260 

IIP.D.,443 

11  P.  b.,  m 

11  P.  D.,  215 

11  P.  D.,  141 

11  P.  D.,  202, 392, 
429,492,-519 

11  P.  D.,  424 

12  P.  D.,  80 

12  P.  D.,  106 

12  P.  D., 348 

12  P. D., 411 

12  P.  D., 303 

12  P.  D.,  431 

12  P.  D., 421 

12  P.  D.,  466 

12  P.  D.,  142 

12  P.  D.,  180 

12  P.  D.,  118 

12  P.  D.,  166 

12  P.  D., 289 

12  P.  D., 254 

12  P.  D., 5, 29, 109, 
221,239,-525 

12  P.  D.,  25 

12  P.  D.,     1 

13  P.  D.,  107 
13  P.  D., 297 


Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Reduction,  No.  2. 

Fee,  No.  8. 

Fee,  No.  6. 

Helpless  minor.  No.  2. 

Attorneys,  No.  9:  Fee,  No.  7. 

Desertion,  No.  5. 

Marriage,  No.  4. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (bb). 

Pi-actice,  No.  10. 

Evidence,  No.  8. 

Rate  and  rating,  No.  2. 

Disloyalty,  No.  1 . 

Attorneys,  No.  1. 

Divorce,  No.  1. 

Rate  and  rating.  No.  6. 

Fee,  No.  10. 

Attorneys,  No.  18;  Pee,  Nos.  7,8, 
9,  25:  Limitation,  No.  3. 

Death  cause.  No.  6. 

Fee,  No.  25. 

Marriage,  No.  9. 

Desertion  No.  3. 

Marriage,  No.  4. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (s). 

Practice,  No.  13. 

Evidence,  No.  10. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (d). 

Divorce,  No.  2. 

Division  of  pension.  No.  4. 

MaiTiage,  No.  15. 

Line  of  duty.  No.  7. 

Fee,  No.  15. 

Service,  No.  6. 

Attorneys,  Nos.  7, 11, 14, 17;  Fee, 
No.  17. 

Special  act.  No.  1. 

Desertion,  No.  2. 

Mai'riage,  No.  3  (a). 

Marriage,  No.  12. 

Practice,  No.  17. 

Divorce,  No.  6. 

Line  of  duty.  No.  7. 

Division  of  pension.  No.  4. 

Service,  No.  16. 

Line  of  duty.  No.  13. 

Death  cause.  No.  10. 

Pathological  sequence.  No.  7. 

Navy  pension,  No.  3. 

Reimbursement,  No.  3. 

Practice,  No.  18. 

Attorneys,  No.  11;  Fee,  Nos.  7-11, 
18,  19. 

Minors,  No.  1. 

Guardians,  No.  2. 

Pathological  sequence,  No.  11. 

Division  of  pen,sion,  No.  12. 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  29 

Table  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  0  to  15,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Sheldon  v.  Sheldon i 

Sherman  v.  Sherman.. 

Sherry,  Hannah  (widow) 

Smith  V.  Smith 

Smith,  KateD.  (widow) 

Smith,  Luther  J 

Snyder,  Annie  (widow) 

Spencer,  L.  C.  A.  (widow).. 

Steele,  Marg.  C.  (widow) 

Stevens,  Milo  B.,  «fe  Co.  (attorneys) 


Stewart,  Eliza  A.  (widow) 

Shafer,  J.  B.  (insane). 

Shanaman.  A.  K.  (widow) 

Shay,  Bridget  (mother) 

Schilling,  Mary  (widow) 

Smedley,  M.  E.  (widow) 

Smith,  John  W 

Smith,  Mariali  (widow) 

Snyder,  Annie  (widow) 

Stevens,  John  C. 

Stevens,  M.  B.,  &  Co.  (attorneys) 

Stolworth,  Cora,  nee  Gee  (mother). 

Strunk  r.  Button  and  Strunk 

Stuart,  Fanny  (widow). 

Sullivan,  E.  (administratrix) 

Spence,  Ann  (widow) 

Sexton,  Fieldon 

Speedy,  Jos.  (minor  of ) 

Sawyer,  L.  L.  (father) 

Struck,  Dorothy  (widow) 

Shapley,  Eunice  T.  (widow). 

Stone,  "William,  alias  Semple  or  Sample... 

Snell,  Solomon 

Shehan,  James  E 

Smith,  Sarah  E.,  now  Herriman  (widow)  . 

Swepston  v.  Swepston 

Smith  V.  Smith 

Showery,  Johanna  (widow) 

Stevens,  Milo  B.,  &  Co.  (attorneys) 

Shadle,  Sarah  J.  (widow) 

Spradlin,  Eliza  A.  (widow) 

Sherard,  Nancy  E.  (widow) 

Seaver,  Nettie  N.  (widow) 

Strieker,  Michael  W. 

Stevens,  Milo  B.,  &  Co.  (attorneys) 

Stevens,  William  H 

Searles,  George  E 


T. 

Talbert,  Jonathan  (minor  of) . . 

Taylor,  William  B 

Thomas,  Margaret  L.  (widow) 
Thompson,  Sarah  C.  (widow).. 

Thi-eet,  James 

Tierney,  Michael 


Volume  and  page. 


13  P. 
13  P. 
13  P. 
13  P. 
13  P. 
13  P. 
13  P. 
13  P. 
13  P. 

13  P.  D,  27 

and  7.5. 


13  P.  D. 

,146 

14  P.  D. 

.  89 

UP.D. 

,5;*) 

UP.D. 

,265 

UP.D. 

,417 

UP.D. 

,  99 

UP.D. 

,215 

UP.D. 

,346 

UP.D. 

,219 

UP.D. 

,209 

UP.D. 

,228 

UP.D. 

,267 

UP.D. 

,  17 

UP.D. 

,5()2 

UP.D. 

,415 

1.5  P.  D. 

,  48 

15  P.  D. 

,265 

15  P.  D. 

,  79 

15  P.  D. 

,172 

15  P.  D. 

,257 

15  P.  D. 

,127 

15  P.  D. 

116 

15  P.  D. 

,437 

15  P.  D. 

,369 

15  P.  D. 

128 

15  P.  D. 

,  82 

15  P.  D. 

,111 

15  P.  D. 

.  41 

15  P.  D. 

,273 

15  P.  D. 

,239 

15  P.  D. 

,  86 

15  P.  D. 

,478 

15  P.  D. 

,249 

15  P.  D. 

207 

15  P.  D. 

492 

15  P.  D. 

,525 

15  P.  D. 

,550 

9P.D. 

,226 

9P.D. 

,.360 

9P.D. 

,i;« 

9P.D. 

318 

9P.D. 

,297 

9P.D. 

,  7 

Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Practice,  No.  22. 

Practice,  No.  21. 

Dependent  widow,  No.  1. 

Division  of  pension.  No.  4. 

Service,  No.  22. 

Practice,  No.  28. 

Adulterous  cohabitation,  No.  5. 

Divorce,  No.  2. 

Service,  No.  35. 

Attorneys,  No.  16;  Fee  Nos.  17, 
21. 

Marriage,  No.  3  (oo). 

Pathological  sequence,  No.  18. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (r). 

Marriage,  No.  2  (d). 

Marriage,  No.  2  (t). 

Divorce,  No.  8. 

Berating,  No.  4. 

Service,  No.  24. 

Adtdterous  cohabitation,  No.  5. 

Commencement,  No.  13. 

Attorneys,  No.  13. 

Dependent  parents,  No.  4. 

Marriage,  No.  1. 

Desertion,  No.  4  (f). 

Bounty  land.  No.  4. 

Adulterous  cohabitation.  No.  8. 

Appeals,  No.  7. 

Commencement,  No.  1. 

Dependent  parents.  No.  9. 

Dependent  widow,  No.  1. 

Dependent  widow.  No.  4. 

Desertion,  No.  4  (b). 

Desertion,  No.  4  (f). 

Disloyalty,  No.  1. 

Divorce,  No.  5. 

Division  of  pension.  No.  1. 

Division  of  pension.  No.  15. 

Evidence,  No.  10. 

Fee,  No.  17. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (1). 

Marriage,  No.  2  (w). 

Helpless  minor.  No.  3. 

Pathological  sequence.  No.  22. 

Rate  and  rating.  No.  5. 

Attorneys,  No.  11. 

Desertion,  No.  4  (b). 

Bate  and  rating.  No.  4. 


Commencement,  No.  1. 
Service,  No.  7. 
Marriage,  No.  3  (a). 
Dei)endent  widow,  No. 
Service,  No.  6. 
Declarations,  No.  3. 


30  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Table  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  15,  pension  devislons,  etc. — Continued, 


Name. 


Volume  and  page. 


Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Trask,  Nai)oleon  B 

Trice,  Orange  (minor  of) 

Trotter,  Barbai-a  (widow) 

Tabor  &  Whitman  (attorneys) 

Taylor,  Helen  A.  M.  (widow) 

Thomas,  Archibald  F. 

Thompson,  John  H.,  alias  Clark 

Thompson,  Warren 

Toller,  William  (minors  of) 

Tallmadge,  T.  W.  (attorney) 

Thornton,  Meta  (widow) 

Trout,  John  R 

Tunison,  Matilda  C.  (widow) 

Tuttle,  Samuel  ( father) 

Tibbetts,  P.  E.  (widow) 

Tounaine,  F.  J.  (helpless  minor) 

Truelove,  William 

Tuten,  R.  E.  (widow) 

Tyler,  D.B 

Taylor,  M.  B.  (widow)... 

Thomas, Peggy  (widow) 

Tiltonr.  Tilton 

Treacy,  Mary  J 

Tripp,  A.  (widow) 

Taylor,  A.,  now  Robinson  (widow) . 

Taylor,  Annie  (widow) 

Taylor,  J.  (widow) 

Taylor,  William  P 

Thompson,  C.  A.  (widow) 

Thompson,  J.  (widow). 

Thorn,  Graham.. 

Tripp,  Annie  L.  (widow) 

Thornton,  Meta  Q.  (widow) 

Taylor  v.  Taylor 

Turner  v.  Turner 

Taylor,  Ellen  C.  (mother) 

Terrell,  Francis  A.  (widow) 

Trickle,  Agnes  (widow) 

U. 

Ulman,  Karolin  (widow) 

V. 

Varco,  Isabella  (widow) 

Veley,  James  T 

Vermilyea,  J.  H.,  &  Co.  (attorneys) 

Vinal,  J.  F.  (attorney) 

Vining,  Rebecca  C.  (widow) 

Vaughn,  Mary  J.  ( widow) 

Veale,  Alonzo  C 

Vogler,  Mary  J.  (widow) 

Van  Houten  v.  Van  Houten 

Veach,  William  H 

Viles,  Mahla  (widow) 

Van  Antwei*p,  S.  E i. 

Van  Trees,  H.  E 


16  P 


9  P.  D.,  113 
9  P.  D., 393 
9  P.  D., 254 
10P.D.,46() 
10  P.  D.,  188 
10  P.  D.,  374 
10  P.  D.,  33 
10  P.  D..  276 

10  P.  D.,  7.5 

11  P.  D.,;^ 
11  P.  D.,  21 

11  P.  D.,  435 
IIP.D.,440 
IIP.D.,278 

12  P.  D., 443 

12  P.  D.. 527 

13  P.  D.,  45 

12  P.  D.,  m 
12P.D.,3&5 

13  P.  D.,  181 
13  P.  D.,  98 
13  P.  D., 363 
13  P.  D., 416 

13  P.  D.,  157 

14  P.  D., 476 
14  P.  D.,  71 
14  P.  D., 360 
14  P.  D.,  276 
14  P.  D,  436 
14  P.  D.,  469 
14  P.  D., 249 

14  P.  D., 242 
D.,3K,351,561 

15  P. D.,  90 
15  P.  D.,  132 
15  P.  D., 315 
15  P.  D.,  225 
15  P.  D.,  50 


15  P.  D., 30:^ 


9P.D.,1, 
9P.D., 
9P.D., 
9P.D., 
9P.D., 

10  P.  D., 

11  P.  D., 
IIP.D., 

12  P.  D., 

12  P.  D.. 
12P.D., 

13  P.  D. 
13  P.  D., 


320 
15 
213 
19 
362 
284 
299 
271 
157 
273 
468 
444 
428 


Death  cause,  No.  2. 

Accrued  pensions.  No.  3. 

Dependent  widow,  No.  1. 

Attorneys,  No.  8. 

Service,  No.  17. 

Appeals,  No.  3. 

Identity,  No.  1. 

Disability,  No.  2. 

Marriage,  No.  15. 

Practice,  No.  14. 

Service,  No.  4. 

Service,  No.  22. 

Death  cause,  No.  5. 

Legitimacy,  No.  2. 

Pathological  sequence,  No.  3. 

Helpless  minor,  No.  3. 

Disloyalty,  No.  6. 

Minoi-s,  No.  4. 

Service,  No.  10. 

Accrued  pension,  No.  8. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (p). 

Division  of  pension,  No.  14. 

Jurisdiction,  No.  5. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (bb). 

Marriage,  No.  2  (v). 

Service,  No.  24. 

Dependent  widow.  No.  4. 

Fee,  No.  23. 

Marriage,  No.  15. 

Estoppel,  No.  3. 

Service,  No.  20. 

Adulterous  cohabitation.  No.  6. 

Bounty  land.  No.  5. 

Division  of  pension.  No.  4. 

Division  of  pension.  No.  10. 

Line  of  duty.  No.  19. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (ee). 

Service,  No.  3. 


Death  cause,  No.  2. 


Dependent  widow,  No.  1. 
Service,  No.  13. 
Attorneys,  No.  9. 
Attorneys,  No.  5. 

Do. 
Decree  of  nullity.  No.  2. 
Berating,  No.  5. 
Decree  of  nullity.  No.  3. 
Practice,  No.  17. 
Service,  No.  8. 
Marriage,  No.  2  rkk). 
Attorneys,  No.  9. 
Fraud  and  mistake.  No.  4. 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


31 


Table  of  vases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  15,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Volume  and  page. 


Vogler,  John 

Vallean,  E.,  now  Goshorn  (widow)  . 
Veirs,  John,  alias  "William  Dow  dell. 
Voglei*  v.  Vogler 

"Wangelin,  EmmaC. - 

Warren,  George  W..- 

Waters,  Catharine  (widow) 

Watson,  William  B... 

Weyant,  William  B.  (minoi*8  of)  — 

Whalen,  Anna  M.  (widow) 

Wheaton,  Charles  C 

Wheeler,  Bessie  C.  (widow) 

Williams,  Elizabeth  M.  (widow) 

Williams,  Henry  C - 

Wilson,  David. 

Winkler,  Zachariah ,... 

Winters,  Martineau  (widow) 

Wood,  Leroy  F 

Wykoff,  George  E 

Walther,  Peter 

Watkins,  Julia  A.  E.  (widow) 

Weeks,  Samuel  B 

Wiley,  Rebecca  (widow) 

Williams,  John  S 

Williams,  Seaborn .^ 

Williams,  Susan  (widow) 

Wilson,  Samuel 

Wilson,  William 

Wood,  Elizabeth  W 

Wagner,  Martin 

Walker,  Drucilla  (widow) 

Weeden,  E.  S.  (attorney).. 

Wilds,  William  W 

Will,  Louis  J 

Williams,  Alfred 

Williamson,  Elizabeth  (widow) 

Wilson,  Joseph  B 

Wilson,  Minna  (widow) 

Winfrey,  Archie  C 

Winkler,  Anna  M.. , 

Wood,  Mary  M.  A.  (widow) 

Woodin,  Jerome,  alias  Frank  Allen 

Wagner,  C.  (alleged  widow) 

Warner,  R.  (widow)... 

Washington,  M.  E.  (widow) 

Watson,  John  T 

Webster,  Thomas 

Wheeler,  Henry 

White,  F,,  alias  William  Johnson.. 

Wilson,  E.  B.  (widow) 

Wade,  JamesJ 

Wallace,  M.,  now  Nichols  (widow) 
Whiteherse,  Samuel , 


13  P.  D. 

3:^1 

14  P.  D. 

411 

14  P.  D. 

552 

14  P.  D. 

385 

9P.D. 

76 

9P.D. 

392 

9P.D. 

206 

9  P.  D.,  182 

395 

9P.D. 

276 

9P.D. 

346 

9P.D. 

156 

9P.D. 

155 

9P.D. 

117 

9P.D. 

39 

9P.D. 

404 

9P.D. 

172 

9P.D. 

108 

9P.D. 

64 

9P.D. 

52 

10  P.  D. 

125 

10  P.  D. 

202 

10  P.  D. 

84 

10  P.  D. 

304 

10  P.  D. 

169 

10  P.  D. 

292 

10  P.  D. 

82 

10  P.  D. 

412 

10  P.  D. 

232 

10  P.  D. 

26 

11  P.  D. 

,455 

11  P.  D. 

,488 

11  P.  D. 

,422 

11  P.  D. 

,  95 

11  P.  D. 

,179 

11  P.  D. 

,163 

11  P.  D. 

,406 

11  P.  D. 

,308 

11  P.  D. 

,339 

11  P.  D. 

,  38 

11  P.  D. 

,241 

11  P.  D. 

,158 

11  P.  D. 

,  13 

12  P.  D. 

,134 

12  P.  D. 

,266 

12  P.  D. 

,228 

12  P.  D. 

,  92 

12  P.  D. 

,441 

12  P.  D. 

,477 

12  P.  D. 

,  49 

12  P.  D. 

,481 

13  P.  D. 

,128 

13  P.  D. 

,286 

13  P.  D. 

,  41 

Che,pter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Commencement,  No.  12. 
Restoration,  No.  2. 
Desertion,  No.  4  (c). 
Division  of  pension,  No.  13. 


Dependent  widow,  No.  1. 

Evidence,  No.  4. 

Service,  No.  3. 

Service,  No.  11. 

Accrued  pensions.  No.  1. 

Service,  No.  7. 

Disability,  No.  3. 

Desertion,  No.  2. 

Fee,  No.  5. 

Fee,  No.  2. 

Rate  and  rating.  No.  2. 

Powell's  battalion.  No.  1. 

Service,  No  4. 

Practice,  No.  5. 

Line  of  duty.  No.  8. 

Disloyalty,  No.  2. 

Death  cause.  No.  5. 

Reimbursement,  No.  1. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (r). 

Service,  No.  7. 

Declarations,  No.  4. 

Discharge,  No.  3. 

Fee,  No.  11. 

Increase,  No.  8. 

Service,  No.  3. 

Practice,  No.  15. 

Marriage,  No.  10, 

Attorneys,  No.  18. 

Practice,  No.  6. 

Age,  No.  1;  Disability,  No.  4. 

Service,  No.  4. 

Divorce,  No.  2. 

Fraud  and  mistake,  No.  2. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (p). 

Disability,  No.  6. 

Accrued  pensions.  No.  5. 

Marriage,  No.  3  (c). 

Desertion,  No.  2;  Practice.  No. 
12. 

Marriage,  No.  4. 

Dependent  widow,  No.  4. 

Identity,  No.  2. 

Increase,  No.  3. 

Fee,  No.  7. 

Disability,  No.  9. 

Commencement,  No.  12. 

Marriage,  No.  2  (k). 

Disloyalty,  No.  8. 

Restoi-ation,  No.  2. 

Service,  No.  20. 


32  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

Table  of  cases  reported  in  volumes  9  to  15,  pension  decisions,  etc. — Continued. 


Name. 


Volume  and  page. 


Chapter  of  digest  and 
index  number. 


Whitney  v.  Whitney 

Woehl,  S.  J.  E.  (widow) 

Walker,  Isaac. 

Ward  well  v.  Ward  well 

Washburn  v.  Washburn 

Weems,  J.  P.  L.  (attorney) 

Wehr,  Solomon  P.. 

Wheeler,  George  W 

Whelan,  Bridget 

White  V.  White. 

White,  Maria  (widow) 

Whitehurst,  Oliver  S 

Wilde,  A.  F.  (widow) 

Williams  v.  Williams 

Willie  V.  Wilson,  alias  Willie 

Winfleld,  Isabella  (widow) 

Wormsted,  William  H 

White,  Thomas  H 

Whiteleather,  Carrie  B.  (mother) 

Wiley,  M.  W.  (as  widow) 

Wheeler,  Julia  A.  (widow) 

Whittle,  H.B... 

Welsh,  Martin 

Wilbur,  Louise  (widow) 

Woodard,  Mary  A , 

Wright  V.  Wright , 

Witz,  M.  E.  A.  (widow) 

Wood,  Andrew  H 

Washington,  Rosetta  (widow) 

Walker,  Isaac 

Williams,  William 

Williams,  Mary  E.  (widow) 

Y. 

Yancey,  Christopher  C 

Young,  Elizabeth  (widow) 

Young,  Jacob - 

Young,  Laura  A 

Yates,  Lizzie  (widow) 

Yates  V.  Yates 

Yerwood,  N.  (father) 


13  P.  D.,  301 

Division  of  pension,  No.  16. 

13  P.  D.,  1355 

Restoration,  No.  2. 

14  P.  D., 256 

Fee,  No.  24. 

14P.D.,334 

Division  of  pension.  No.  15. 

14  P.  D.,  127 

Do. 

14  P.  D.,  199 

Fee,  No.  22. 

14  P.  D., 515 

Service,  No.  26. 

14  P.  D., 542 

Pathological  sequence,  No.  16 

14P.D.,;380 

Desertion,  No.  4  (b). 

14  P.  D., 313 

Division  of  pension.  No.  15. 

14  P.  D.,  21 

Marriage,  No.  4. 

14P.D.,45() 

Medical  examination,  No.  2. 

14  P.  D., 506 

Line  of  duty,  No.  8. 

14  P.  D.,     1 

Division  of  pension.  No.  19. 

14  P.  D.,  43 

Marriage,  No.  1. 

14  P.  D.,  128, 194 

Restoration,  No.  2. 

14  P.  D.,  182 

Disability,  No.  10. 

.     15  P.  D.,  147 

Bounty  land.  No.  3. 

15  P.  D.,  58 

Death  cause.  No.  15. 

15  P.  D.,  286 

Decree  of  nullity,  No.  7. 

15  P.  D.,:^ 

Dependent  widow,  No.  1. 

15  P.  D., 337 

Disloyalty,  No.  11. 

15  P.  D., 318 

Fee,  No.  26. 

15  P.  D., 270 

Insane  person.  No.  2. 

15  P.  D.,  253 

Marriage,  No.  2  Ce). 

15  P.  D.,  236 

Marriage,  No.  2  (u). 

15  P.  D., 208 

MaiTiage,  No.  2  (bb). 

15  P.  D., 333 

Berating,  No.  6. 

15  P.  D., 446 

Restoration,  No.  2. 

15  P.  D.,  198 

Service,  No.  24. 

15  P.  D., 281 

Do. 

15  P.  D., 543 

Marriage,  No.  2  (hh). 

9  P.  D.,  185 

Evidence,  No.  5. 

9P.D.,  44 

Service,  No.  4. 

9  P.  D.,  147 

Fee,  No.  1. 

9  P.  D.,  403 

Rate  and  rating,  No.  1. 

10  P.  D., 446 

Marriage,  No.  1. 

12  P.  D., 225 

Practice,  No.  17. 

13  P.  D.,  140 

Marriage,  No.  15. 

PENSION  DECISIONS— VOLUME  9. 


TABLE  OF  CASES  CITED. 


A. 

Page. 

Abbott,    William    H.    (22    Fee   r.    L. 

Bk..    75) 403 

Ackenback,  George  (7  P.  D.,  169) __  29,45 
Adams,     James     S.,     Lucy     Adams, 

widow  of   (8  P.  D.,  93) 13 

Adler,  S.  E.   (5  P.  D.,  229) 472,474 

Aiken,  Richmond  v.  (25  Vt.,  324)__  34 
Am.   and   Eng.   Enc.   of  Law    (vol   2, 

p.    654)    36 

Ames.  Joel   (8  P.  D.,  171) 21 

Ammerman,  William  M.  (3  P.  D.,  1)  275 
Amos,  George  W.  (8  P.  D.,  271)—  359 
Anderson,  ex  parte  (16  Iowa,  595 )_  491 
Anderson,  Margaret  J.  (4  P.  D.,  67)-  499 
Anderson,  United  States  v.  (9  Wall., 

56) 207 

Angel,  Mylon   (8  P.  D.,  35) 378 

Angel  V.  People  (96  111.,  209) 36,252 

Arendes,  Margaretha   (8  P.  D.,  425)        468 

Attorney-General    (7  Op.,  149) 233 

Attorney-General    (15  Op.,   157)-_  388,443 

Attorney-General    (17  Op.,  339) 58 

Attorney-General    (21  Op.,   169) 58 

B. 

Babb,    Isaac   N.,   alias   John   Dunlap 

(8  P.  D.,  59) 156,257,366 

Babcock,  Robins  E.   (7  P.  D.,  285)  __        375 

Bailey,  David  J.   (7  P.  D.,  173) 206 

Bainbridge,  J.  Story,  in  U.  S.  v.    (1 

Mason,   81)    490 

Ball,  T.  W.   (41  Cal.,  29) 469 

Barleyoung,  John   (7  P.  D.,  453)_   119,126 

Barlow,  Henry  (9  P.  D.,  347) 468 

Barnes,  James  (2  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  442)  _  257 
Barnes,  James  M.   (8  P.  D.,  94)  __  303,468 

Bassett,  Anne  E.   (8  P.  D.,  321) 385 

Beatrice,    Schmisseur     v.     (147    111., 

210)    34,251 

Bennett,  Chas.  T.   (7  P.  D.,  1)_^_—       414 

Bennett,  Thomas  S.   (2  P.  D.,  9)___  13 

Bernstein,  Adolph    (7  P.  D.,  229)—        24, 

260,  283,  366 

Besser,  .Tohn  P.    (7  P.  D.,  146) 260 

Beswick   (25  How.  Pr.,  151) 490 

Bierbaum.   Caroline,    widow  of   Ern- 
est  (4  P.  D..  172) 115,268 


Page. 

Bishop,  Harriet  S.   (4  P.  D.,  354)—  495 
Blanchard    v.    Lambert    et    al.     (43 

Iowa,    229)    248 

Blew,  Maria  (8  P.  D.,  490) 43 

Bollman    v.    Swartwout    (4    Cranch, 

126)    367 

Bone,  Wallace  G.  (2  P.  D.,  310) 85 

Boston,   etc.,  R.  Co.,   Elkins   v.    (115 

Mass.,  190)   14 

Bostwick,  State  v.  (4  H.  Del.,  563) _  36 
Bowersmith,  Jacob  (3  P.  D.,  303) _  257,  386 

Brady,  Mary  (9  P.  D.,  305) 468 

Branch  v.  Bowman  (2  Leigh.,  170)  _  7 

Brandt,  Hiram  H.  G.  (5  P.  D.,  282) _  168 
Brewer,     Timberlake     v.     (59     Ala., 

108)    •- 368 

Briggs,  Davie  v.  (97  U.  S.,  628) 243 

Brockenshaw,  William  H.    (3  P.  D., 

11)    275 

Brockman,  George  E.   (IP.  D.,  453; 

2  P.  D.,  239) 108,173 

Bronoel,   Mary   E.,   minor.  (8   P.   D., 

387)    191 

Brookman,  George  H.  (7  P.  D.,  260) _  178 

Brown,  George  A.   (8  P.  D.,  309)_--  400 
Brown  v.  'United  States   (113  U.  S., 

568)    470 

Brunz,  Anton  (8  P.  D.,  344) 108 

Brush,     James    IT.,    alias    Jesse    L. 

Judd   (7  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  73) 258,386 

Buckner,    111.    Central    R.    I  .    Co.    v. 

(28   111.,   299) 14 

B,  and  Mo.  Riv.  R.  R.,  United  States 

r.   (98  U.  S.,  334-341) 470 

Burton,  Jeannette  (9  P.  D.,  31) 246 

Burton,  Spears  v.   (21  Miss.,  546)—  36 

Bush,  Aaron  T.    (8  P.  D.,   254) 294 

Bush,  Reed  v.   (5  Bim.,  455) 460 

Bush,  Sarah    (9  P.  D.,   144) 257,468 

Butler,  Jeremiah  (7  P.  D.,  214) 208 


C. 


Capella,  Anastatic  (8  P.  D.,  308)—      283, 

294,  366 

Carey,  Stephen  H.  (6  P.  D.,  42) 144 

Carley.  Timothy  L.   (7  P.  D.,  12)_--        191 
Carpenter,  Neitz  v.  (21  Cal.,  456)_   34,248 


13070— OG- 


33 


34 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


Page. 
Carroll  v.  Carroll  (20  Texas,  731)—       247 

Carter,  Eliza  W.   (5  P.  D.,  148) 499 

Castalor,  Clark  J.,  Phebe,  widow  of 

(2  P.  D.,  32) - 13 

Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.   Feller    (84 

Pa.    St.,    226) 14 

Chapman,  in  re  (2  Law  Rep.  Annd., 

352;  37  Fed.   Rep.,  327) 491 

Chryst,  Mary   (8  P.  D.,  242) 150 

City  of  Centralia  v.  Krouze  (64  111., 

19)    14 

Clark,  R.  H.   (8  P.  D.,  202) 339 

Clark,    Rose   v     (8   Paige    Ch.    Rep., 

573)    248 

Claw,  Jackson  v.  (18  Johnson,  347)  248 
Clear,  Jackson  v.    (18  Johns,  N.  Y., 

346)  37 

Cleveland,  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.   v. 

Terry  (8  Ohio  St.,  570) 14 

Cline,  William  (7  P.  D.,  119) 310,402 

Coburn,  William  T.  (7  P.  D.,  182)  257,388 
Cockburn,   Van   Buren  v.    (14  Barb., 

N.  Y.,   122) 34,248 

Coflfey,  George  W.  (4  P.  D.,  285)  ___  282 
Coleman,  James  S.   (Digest  of  1885, 

422)    84,87 

Colgin,  Susan   (5  P.  D.,  127) 145,386 

Collector,  Hadden  v.  (5  Wall.,  112)  467 
Commissioner   of   Pensions,    Long  v. 

(Sup.   Ct.  D.   C.) 431 

Com.    V.    French     (Thatcher,    Mass. 

163)    30 

Com.  V.  Gamble  (11  Serg.  &  R.,  93 )_  491 
Com.  V.  Green  (2  Pick.,  Mass.,  380)  _  36 
Commonwealth  v.  Marshall    (62  Pa. 

St.,   328)    467 

Com.  i".  Mead  (10  Allen,  Mass.,  398)  36 

Com.,  Willett  V.   (13  Bush.,  Ky.,  230)  36 

Coney,  John  G.   (3  P.  D.,  200) 239 

Conn.  Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co.,  Tlsdale 

V.   (26  Iowa,   170) 245 

Conroy,  Jane  (2  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  477)  __  387 
Cosenow,  in  re  (37  Fed.  Rep.,  661 )_       491 

Couch,  William  C.   (8  P.  D.,  39) 294 

Cowen,  Franklin  S.  (7  P.  D.,  374) __       144 

Cox,  Mary  A.  (3  P.  D.,  313) 115, 

116,  267,  493,  496 
Craiglow,  Martin  J.   (7  P.  D.,  517).  20 

Crider,  Melinda  L.  (7  P.  D.,  462)  __       246 

Cullen,  James   (6  P.  D.,  72) 144, 

156,  386,  408 

Curran,  John  W.  (5  P.  D.,  1) 71 

Curtis,  Fanny   (2  P.  D.,  159) 499 

Cushman,  Henry  (7  P.  D.,  408)  ___  23,468 


D. 


Daly,  Thomas  (2  P.  D.,  220) 508 

Darby,     Edward's     Lessee     v.      (12 

Wheaton,    207) 470 

Davenport    v.     Ruckman     (10    Bos- 
worth,  N.  Y.,  20;   37  N.  Y.,  568)  _  14 

Davie  v.  Briggs   (97  U.  S.,  628) 243 

Davinney,  Henry  (7  P.  D.,  233) __  257,382 

Davis,  Evaline,  widow  (9  P.  D.,  2)_  322 

Da-is,  Henry  L.  (3  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  56)  _  368 


Page. 

Davis,  Lawrence  H.  (8  P.  D.,  406)  _  403 

Davis,  Norman  (8  P.  D.,  288) 150 

Davison,  in  re  (21  Fed.  Rep.,  618) _  491 

Dean,  John  (4  P.  D.,  392) 275 

Deddrick  v.  Wood  (15  Pa.  St.,  9)  __  467 

De  Tar,  Theodore  (4  P.  D.,  130) ___  168 
Dickenson,  Charlotte  M.  (6  L.  B.  P., 

318)    154 

Dickerson,  Phillips  v.    (85  111.,   11) _  14 

Doan,  Louisa  J.  (8  P.  D.,  377) 500 

Dorlas,  Nancy  J.  (5  P.  D.,  230) 499 

Douglass,  John  (14  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  385)-  4S 

Douglas  V.  Pike  (101  U.  S.,  677)  ___  470 

Downard,  Ida  M.  (7  P.  D.,  290)  ___  81 
Downey,    Robertson    v.    (127    U.    S., 

607)    470 

Dulaney,  Ward  v.   (23  Miss.,  410) _  34,248 

Durkee,  James  J.  (8  P.  D.,  152) 41,43 

Duval,  James  (9  P.  D.,  218) 414 

E. 

Eastridge,  Mary  E.  (8  P.  D.,  5)  ___  63,  218 

Edgell,  Elizabeth   (5  P.  D.,  96) 496 

Edward's     Lessee      r.      Darby      (12 

Wheat,   207) 470 

Ehler,  Keiflfer  v.  (18  Pa.  St.,  388) __       469 

Eibel,  Kate  (7  P.  D.,  179) 386 

Elkins  V.   Boston,   etc.,   R.   Co.    (115 

Mass.,    190) 14 

Ellis  V.  Ellis  (58  Iowa,  720) 248 

Emory,  United  States  v.    (112  U.   S. 

Rep.,    510) 409 

Evans,  Cynthia  (5  P.  D.,  188) 63,330 

F. 

Fagin,  Ann  (9  P.  D.,  62) 332 

Fain,  Eliza  (7  P.  D.,  572) 328 

Falkenburg,    Dewitt    C.     (3    P.    D., 

336)    488 

Farrell,    Edward    et    al.     (7    P.    D., 

532)    __^__ 120,126,207 

Felber,  Elizabeth  (4  P.  D.,  329) 81 

Feller,  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (84  Pa. 

St.,    226) 14 

Fenton  v.  Reed  (4  Johnson,  51) 248 

Ferrie  v.  Pub.  Adm.   (4  Barb.  N.  Y., 

28)    34,  248 

Few,  Annie  E.   (8  P.  D.,  95) 303,468 

Fisher,  United  States  v.    (2  Cranch, 

358)    467 

Fleck,  George  W.  (7  P.  D.,  343)  ___      124, 

163,  468 
Fleming  v.  People  (27  N.  Y.,  329 )_  34,248 
Flynn,  Ellen,  widow  (8  P.  D.,  54)  __       442 

Frank,  Francis  (9  P.  D.,  68) 217 

Freeman,  United  States   v.    (3  How- 
ard,   565) 260,  283 

French,  B.  J.  (7  P.  D.,  54) 44 

French,    Com.    v.    (Thatcher,    Mass., 

163)    36 

Fullbright,  Miles  F.   (9  P.  D.,  146)  _       366 

G. 

Gaines    v.    New    Orleans     (6    Wall., 

642)    36 


PENSION   AND  BOUNTY-LAND  CLAIMS. 


35 


Page. 
Gaines,      Patterson     v.      (6     How., 

550)    34;  86,  248 

Gamble,  Com.  v.  (11  Serg.  &  R.,  93)-  491 
Gannon,     Elizabeth    A.     (3     P.     D., 

67)    - 257,388 

Gardiner,  llallowell  r.   (1  Me.,  93) _  469 

Garrison,  Daniel  B.    (6  P.  D.,  289) _  282 

George  v.  Taylor  (55  Tex.,  97) 150 

Gibson  v.  State  (38  Miss.,  322) 36 

Gierhart,  Emma  (6  P.  D.,  155) 81 

Gilbert,  George  W.    (9  I'.  D.,  279)  __  366 

Gillespie,  Alexander  (2  P.  D.,  16)--  276 
Gilmore,  United  States  v.    (8  Wall., 

330)    470 

Gilpin  V.  Page  (18  Wall.,  364) 34,248 

Goller,  Salem  v.   (76  Ind.,  291) 14 

Gonzales    v.    N.    Y.    etc.,    R.    Co.    (1 

Jones  &  S.,  N.  Y.,  57) 14 

Good,  George  W.,  minor  of  (8  P.  I)., 

407)    191 

Gorby,  Sarah   (4  P.  I).,  298) 243 

Grace  v.  Wilber  (12  Johns,  68) 492 

Graham,    United   States   v.    (110   U. 

S.,    219-221) 470 

Gray,  Alice  (7  I'.  D.,  134) 330 

Greathouse,     United     States     v.     (4 

Sawyer,    472) 367 

Green,  Com.  v.  (2  I'iclc.  Mass.,  380) _  36 
Green,   John  S.    (16  Fee,   P.   L.   Bk., 

349)    148 

Greenleaf    on    Evidence    (paragraph 

42)    243 

Griswold,   widow   and   minors  of    (3 

P.  D.,  o.  s.,  492) 81 

Grofif,  "Diana  B.   (8  P.  D.,  91) 435,496 

Grooms,  Sarah  J.  (7  P.  D.,  207)—-  63,330 

Groppe,  Henry  (8  P.  D.,  293) 152 

Guild,  State  v.  (5  Halst.  N.  Y.,  192)-  36 

.     H. 

Hadden  v.  Collector  (5  Wall.,  112)-  467 
Hall,    United    States    v.    (98    U.    S., 

343)    59,81 

llallowell  V.  Gardner  (1  Me.,  93)  „       469 

Hantz  V.  Sealy   (6  Binn.,  405) 498 

Harris  v.  Harris  (8  HI.  App.,  57)  _  .34,252 
Harris  v.  Ubelhoer  (75  N.  Y.,  169)-  14 

Harrison,  James  E.  (7  P.  D.,  97)—        53, 

236,  433 
Harrison    v.    United    States    (20    C. 

Cls.   Rep.,   122) 219,414,431 

Haslan,   Morris,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.    (33 

N.  J.  L.,   147) 14 

llayden,  Sarah  S.  (8  P.  D.,  364)  ___  498 
Hayes  v.  Michigan  Central  Railroad 

(111   U.   S.,   241) 494 

Hayford,  Ira  W.    (9  P.  D.,  307) 352 

Haynie,  Henry  N.  (9  P.  D.,  304)  _  361,468 
Helmer,  Henry  A.    (2  P.  D.,  385;  3 

P.   D.,   Ill;  7  P.  D.,   .376;  L.   B., 

286,   p.    11) 1.30.434 

Heron,  Michael,  widow  of   (8  P.  D., 

o.  s.,  294) 194 

Hicks,  James  L.  (8  P.  D.,  518) 72 

Hii:,  George  W.  (7  P.  D.,  235)—  290,  303 


Page. 
Hill,   United   States   v.    (120   U.   S., 

169)    470 

Hilton,  George  D.  (8  P.  D.,  182)   —   136,  357 

Hoflfman,  Marg-aret  (9  P.  D.,  227) 434 

Holcomb,  Mahlon  D.    (19  Fee  P.   L. 

Bk.,  244)   376 

Hollywood,  Julia  B.  (8  P.  D.,  106)—  45 

Hoppel,  Phillip  (5  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  151)-  368 

Houser,  Sarah  J.   (6  P.  D.,  281) 63 

Houston  V.  Moore  (5  Wheat.,  1) 423 

Houston,  Yates  r.  (3  Texas,  433) _—  247 
Howard,  Lafayette  G.,  minor  child  of 

(8  P.   D.,  230) 152 

Hoy,  James,  widow  of  (2  P.  D.,  o.  s., 

210)    495 

Hudson,  O'Mara  v.,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (38 

N.  Y.,  445) 14 

Hughes,  Tanner  r.   (53  Pa.,  289)—  34 

Hull  r.  Rawles  (27  Miss.,  471) 36 

Hulse,  William  L.  (8  P.  D.,  349)—  48 
Hunt's  Appeal   (86  Pa.,  294-296)  _   498,499 

Hutchins  v.  Kimmell  (31  Mich.,  126)  140 

I. 

111.  Central  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Buckner  (28 

111.,   299) 14 

Insurance    Company     v.    Tweed     (7 

Wall.,   52) 494 

J. 

Jackson  v.  Claw  (18  Johns,  347)—  248 
Jackson  v.   Clear    (18  Johns,   N.   Y., 

346)    37 

.Tohn,  Phillip   (8  P.  D.,  64) 24 

Johns.  William  B.  (2  P.  D.,  393)— _  413 

Jones  V.  .Tones  (48  Md.,  397) 37 

Johnston,  United  States  v.  (124  U.  S., 

236)    470 

Johnson,  Emma  E.  (7  P.  D.,  415)—  496 
Johnson  r.  Johnson  (114  111.,  611)-  34,  252 

K. 

Kaufman,  Daniel  B.    (1   P.  D.,  383; 

3  P.  D.,   137) 385,387 

KeifiEer  r.  Ehler  (18  Pa.  St.,  388)—  469 
Kelley,  Bridget   (7  P.  D.,  128)— _   256,386 
Kelley,  John  G.  (8  I\  D.,  o.  s.,  229)-  256 
Kellogg,    Milwaukee    Railway    Com- 
pany V.   (94  U.  S.,  474) 494 

Kelly,  Mary   (8  P.  D.,  382) 194 

Kelly,  Michael  (3  P.  D.,  240) 168 

Kendall,    Frances     (8    P.    D.,    197)  1, 
169,328,332 

Kenney,  Peter  (7  P.  D.,  588) 257,388 

Kerner,  Frederick  W.  (7  P.  D.,  305)-  496 

Kersey,  Sarah  A.,  widow  (6  P.  D.,  1)_  16,  24 
Kilburn,  Newell,  Williams,  Mary  J., 

V.  (88  Mich..  279) 140 

Kilmarnock,  Milo  t'.  (11  Me.,  455)--  469 

Kimmell,  Hutchins  v.  (31  Mich.,  126)  140 

Kinney,  .T.   F.    <4   P.   D.,   132) 81 

Klein,  Katharine  (7  P.  D.,  278)  77,  255,  503 
Knappenborger.    Caroline    (3    P.    D., 

263)    63 


36 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


Page. 
Koler,   Albert  and  George   (5  P.  D., 

99)    81 

Krouze,  City  of  Centralia  r.  (64  111., 

19)    14 

L. 

Landgraf,  Susan   (7  1'.  1).,  380)__  255,319 

Larimer,  Susan   (3  I*.  D.,  235) 03 

Laughlin,  John  M.   (8  I*.  D.,  52)__   11,354 
Leonard,  E.  S.   (9  P.  D.,  194)  ______        4(>8 

Lessor,     George     (8     P.     D.,     114)         156, 

255,  383,  489 

Lewis,  Jennie  D.   (6  P.  !).,  294) 76,255 

Lewis,  Mary  E.,  widow  of  George  W. 

(2  V.   D..  334) 495 

Lingers,  Sophia  (4  V.  I).,  287) 63 

Lee,  William  G.  (G  P.  I).,  149) 178 

Locke,  James  (7  P.  I).,  532) 409 

Lockhart  r.  White  (18  Texas,  102)  _  36,  247 
Loeb,  Jacob,  minor  of  (7  1'.  D.,  167) _  190 
Lohr,  Elizabeth,  widow  (13  Fee  P.  L. 

Bk.,  144)   118 

Long,    V.    Commissioner   of   Pensions 

(Sup.   Ct.   D.   C.) 431 

Longee,  Augustus  II.   (7  P.  D.,  586)       147, 

283,  294 
Love,  Oscar  (26  Fee  I'.  L.  Bk.,  419)_       339 

Loveitt,  Clarence  (7  1'.  I).,  405) 453 

Lowell,  Winn  r.  (1  Allen,  Mass.,  177)  14 

Lyons,  Ellen  (6  P.  D.,  151) 41,43 

Lyon,   Eudora   H.,   widow    (7   P.   D., 

215)    46 

M. 

McAleer  r.  McMurray  (58  Pa..  126) _  34 

McAlpine,  Daniel  (2  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  390)  256 
McElrath  r.  United  States  (102  U.  S., 

438)    207 

McCluney,  Elizabeth   (1  P.  I).,  o.  s., 

84)    154 

McCollum,     Michael     A.,     t^lizabeth, 

widow  of  (6  P.  I>.,  93) . 142 

McConologue   (107  Mass.,  170) 491 

McCullum,  Abram  (6  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  Ill)  167 

McCullum,  Mary  B.  (6  P.  D.,  931)  __  499 
McDonald,  John  W.    (5  P.   D.,  o.  s., 

104)    368 

McManus,  Mary  A.  (4  P.  D.,  346) __  276 
Mackey,    Francis — Susannah,    widow 

of  (8  P.  D.,  535) 304,347,361 

Mallon,  Thomas  (8  P.  D.,  208) 289 

Maloy    r.    Wabash,   etc.,   R.    Co.    (84 

Mo..    270) 14 

Maness,  Rebecca  (7  P.  D.,  110) 496 

Manley,  Randolph  M.  (5  P.  D.,  295) _  464 

Marshall,  Albert   (5  P.  D.,  226) 168 

Marshall,  Commonwealth   r.    (62  Pa. 

St.,    328) 467 

Martin,  Alexander  (4  P.  D..  378)  ___  126 

Martin,  Jackson  (7  P.  D..  265) 63.219 

Martin,  .Tohn   (7  P.  D..  578) ___  93,  95,  2,'>2 

May,  Christian  (8  P.  D.,  71) 150.462 

Mead.  Com.  r.  (10  Allen.  Mass..  398)  36 

Meike,  Henry  H.   (6  P.  D.,  192) 168 

Meister  v.  Moore  (96  U.  S.,  76) 82 


Messmer  and  Morrison  (6  I',  1).,  20)  _ 
Michigan  Central  Railroad.  Ilayes  r. 

(Ill  U.  S..  241) 

Miller.  Christian   (4  1'.  I).,  351) 

Miller,  Francis  O.  (2  P.  D..  214) 

Miller,  James  W.   (8  I\  D.,  316)  __   2; 

Miller.  Ruth  L.   (2  P.  D.,  214) 

Milo  r.  Kilmarnock   (11  Me..  455)  __ 
Milwaukee  Railway  Company  v.  Kel- 
logg  (94  r.  S.,  474) ^ 

Miner.  Lydia  A.   (8  P.  D.,  104 

Minor.  Susan  M.   (8  I*.  D..  263) 

Mizner.  Sarah   (7  P.  D.,  62) 

Moore.  Edward  W.    (8  I*.  I).,  400)  __ 

Moore.  Houston  r.   (5  Wheat..  1) 

Moore.  Meister  r.  (96  U.  S.,  76) 

Moore,  William  II.  (26  Fee  P.  L.  Bk.. 

455)    

Morris,  Ellie  (9  P.  D..  353) 

Morris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Haslan  (33  N. 

J.    L..    147) 

Morrison  and  Messmer  (6  1*.  D.,  20) _ 


M. 


Page. 
24 

494 
310 
440 
►7,  386 
495 
469 

494 
339 
41,43 
118 
56 
423 


171 
454 


Morrison,  Whitaker  r.    (Fla..  29)__  .34,248 

Morse,  Thankful   (1  P.  D.,  56) 499 

Murray,  Thomas  (2  L.  B.  P.,  88)-__  154 
Murray,  Valerie  S.  (8  1'.  D.,  247) __  364 
Muse,  R.  W.  P.    (2  P.  D.,  180) 44,45 

X. 

Neitz  r.  Carpenter  (21  Cal..  456) _  34,248 
New    Orleans,    Gaines    v.    (6    Wall., 

642)    36 

Newman,  Henry  (8  P.  D.,  532) __  236,435 
Newton  v.  Southron  (7  N.  Y.,  130) _  37 

Nichols,  Charles  A.   (4.  1'.  D.,  213 )_  54 

Niedhammer,  Alma,  widow   (8  P.  D., 

276)    115,268,360 

N.  J.,  etc..  Trans.   Co.,   West  r.    (32 

N.   J.    L.,   91) 14 

Norris,  Louisa  S.   (5  1'.  D.,  42) 24 

North,   United  States  v.    (112  U.   S. 

Rep.,    510)     409 

Norton,  John  (9  P.  D.,  382) _  417,442,489 
N.    Y.,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   Gonzales    r.    (1 

Jones  &  S.,  N.  Y.,  57) 14 

O. 

Oiler,  Jacob  (7  P.  D.,  309) 400 

Oliver,  David    (7  I'.    D.,  597) 23, 

98,  99,  182,  361,  396 
O'Mara  v.   Hudson,   etc.,   R.   Co.    (38 

N.  Y.,  445) 14 

O'Neill,   Margaret,   widow    (8   P.    D., 

333)    169 

Ousterhout,   Milo    (7  P.   D..  270)  ___       283 

Ozborn,   Sarah  H.    (7   P.   D.,  317)__        24, 

147,  260,  283,  294,  366 


Page.  Gilpin   r.    (18  Wall.,  364)_-_  .34,248 

Palmer,  Ellen  A.   (7  P.  D.,  .363) 1.39, 

141,  499 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


37 


Page. 
Parker.   William   II.    (8  P.   D..   198)  _        260 
Patterson   r.  Gaines    ((J  How.,  500>_         84, 

8(5,  248 
I'atterson,   Obed  A.    (8   1'.   I).,  4r»2)_        839 

Payne,    Matilda    (5   P.   D.,    161) 63 

Payne.    Wilkinson    v.    (4    Durn    and 

East's    Rep.,    468) 248 

Peach     r.    Utica     (10    Iliin.,    N.    Y.. 

477)    14 

Pearson.  Ellen   (5  P.  D..  258) 124 

Peck,   Starr   r.    (1   Hili,  270) 248 

Peet  r.  Peet   (52  Mich.,  464)___^_   140,141 

Pendleton.  .Tohn    (5  P.   D.,  217) 81 

Pennington   r.   Yell    (11   Ark.,   212)  _  34 

People.  Ansel  v.    (96  III.,  209) 36,  252 

People,  Fleming  v.  (27  N.  Y.,  329)  _  34.  248 
Petersdorf,  Henrietta  (4  P.  D.,  96) _  495 
Peterson,  Bowman  H.  (8  P.  D..  56) _  276 
Philbrick   r.    I'nited   States    (120   F. 

S.,   52-.59)    470 

Philips   r.   State    (15  Ga.,  518) 469 

Philips,  Isaac  N.    (8  P.  I>.,  377) 468 

Phillips  r.  Dickerson   (85  111.,  11) __  14 

Pierce.   Oliver  P.    (7   P.   D.,   91) 42 

Pike,  Douglas  r.    (101  U.  S.,  677) __        470 

Pipes,  Ellen  .T.   (7  P.  I)..  489) 24, 

63,  333,  .866 
Poland,   Elizabeth    II.,    widow    (8   P. 

D.,    266) 16,87,163 

Potter,  .Joseph  M.   (3  P.  D.,  82) 132 

Powell  r.  Powell    (27  Miss.,  783)__   .84,248 

Pratt,  Louisa  II.   (5  I».   D.,  98) 63 

Prince,  .Tacob  (7  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  121 )_  1.85 
Pub.    Adm.,    Ferrie   r.    (4    Barb.,    N. 

Y.,  28)    84,248 

Purl   V.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.    (72 

Mo.,    168) 14 


Quigg,  .Tames  (8  P.  D.,  248) 65 

Quinn,   Anne   (2  P.   D.,  356) 44 


R. 


Ransom,  Albert  K.   (5  P.  D.,  183)_  16,162 

Rawles,  Hull  r.   (27  Miss.,  471) 36 

Reed   r.   Bush    (5  Bim.,  455) 469 

Reed,  Fenton  v.   (4  .Tohns,  51) 248 

Reynolds,   John   W.    (1   P.   D.,   o.   s., 

223) 468 

Rhodes,  Marcls  M.  (8  P.  D.,  99)___  24 
Rice     on     Evidence     (pp.     764     and 

1223)    243 

Rice,  Mary  .T.   (7  P.  D.,  569) 123 

Richmond    r.   Aiken    (25  Vt.,  324)  __  34 

Ridgway,  Basil  T.  (9  P.  D.,  300)__  468 
Rieckoif,   Ernst,   minor  of   (8  P.   D., 

824) 191 

Riley   (1  Benedict,  410) 490 

Rinkel,   .Tacob    (8  P.   D.,   30) 69 

Ripon,  Stewart  v.  (38  Wis.,  584) __  14 
Robertson    r.    Downey    (127    U.    S., 

607)    470 

Rogers,  William  F   (9  P.  D.,  96)_--  396 


Page. 
Rose    V.    Clark    (8    Paige    Ch.    Rep., 

573)    1 248 

Rosse,  Irving  C.    (6  P.  D.,  68) 23 

S. 

Salem  v.  Goller   (76  Ind.,  291) "  14 

Sandown.  Sluper  r.    (52  Vt.,  251) __  14 

Sarver,  Barnabus    (9  P.  D.,  294) 866 

Schaffer,  Louis    (6  P.   D.,   187) 98, 

99,  182.  .896 

Schmidlin,  Elizabeth  (5  P.  D.,  200)  _  499 
Schmidlin,   .Toseph,   Mary   B.,   widow 

of    (6   P.    D.,   200) 142 

Schmisseur    r.     Beatrice     (147     111., 

210)    84.251 

Schoepf,  .Tohn    (7  P.  I).,  19) .858 

Scott.  William  W.   (7  P.  D.,  417)___  205 

Sealey,   Hantz    r.    (6   Binn.,  405) 498 

Server,  Ann  E.    (7  P.   D.,  468) 499 

Seymour,  Emma    IT.  (8  P.  D.,  825) _   288,  294 

Shank.   Eliza    (8  P.  D.,  486) .865 

Shannon,  Andrew  .T.    (7  P.  D.,  64 )_  28, 

803,  .861,  468 
Shapley     v.     Wyman      (134     Mass., 

118)    14 

Sharpe,  Marie   (8  P.  D.,  175) 243 

Shattuck.   ,T.    (7   I».    D.,   169) 44 

Sheets,  Amy  1*.   (3  P.  D..  298) 499 

Sickles,  Caroline  A.  (6  P.  D.,  164 )_  243 
Silvey,  William,  widow  of  (4  P.  D., 

o.    s.,    174) . 194 

Simmerman    v.    H.    &   St.    .T.    R.    Co. 

(71  Mo.,  476  ;  2  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R. 

Cas.,   191)    14 

Simpson,  Darwin  C.   (8  P.  D.,  311 )_  138 

Sluper  r.  Sandown   (52  Vt.,  251)—  14 

Smith.  .Tames  G.    (8  P.  D.,   172) 126 

Smith,  Nanna  .T.   (9  P.  D..  8.59) 496 

Snyder,  Israel   (8  P.  D.,  265) 43 

Soper,   Alfred   S.    (No.  23569,   Letter 

Bk.,  206,  p.  81) 412 

Soper,   Briggs    (8  P.   D.,   .894) 152 

Southron,  Newton  v.  (7  N.  Y.,  130)  _  37 

Spears  v.   Burton    (21   Miss.,  .546)  __  .86 

Spraggler,  Adolph  (8  P.  D.,  51) 9 

Stack,  Sarah  A.,  mothei<  of  .Tohn  G. 

(2  1\   D.,    158) ^ 441,495 

Stage's  Case  (5  C.  II.  R.  N.  Y.,  120)_  36 

Stakes,   George  H.    (4  P.   D.,   158) __  135 

Stapleton,  Thomas   (8  P.  D.,  48)___  260 

Starr  v.  Peck   (1   Hill,  270)____ 248 

State  V.  Bostwick   (4  H.  Del.,  563) _  36 

State,  Gibson  v.  (38  Miss.,  322) 86 

State    V.    Guild     (5    Halst.,    N.    Y., 

192) .86 

State,  Philips  v.   (15  Ga.,  518) 469 

Stetzell,  Frances   (9  P.  D.,  9) 8.54,4,54 

Stevens,  M.  B.,  &  Co.  (5  P.  D.,  254 )_  478 

Stewart  v.  Ripon  (88  Wis.,  .584)___  14 
St.   Louis,   Purl   v.,  etc.,   R.   Co.    (72 

Mo.,   168) 14 

Stone,  Charles  (8  P.  D.,  477) 107 

Story,  J.,  in  U.  S.  v.  Bainbridge   (1 

Mason,   81) 490 

Strange,  Thomas  H.  (7  P.  D.,  36)—  216 


38 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


Page. 

Sutherland  on  Statutory  Construc- 
tion  (sees.  309,  333) 277 

Sutton,   Alexander,   minor 'sisters  of 

(8  P.  D.,   137) 161,505 

Swartwout,   Bollman   v.    (4   Cranch, 

126)    367 


T. 


Tallman,   Evelyn   S.    (6  P.   D.,  261, 

reaffirmed     in    Letter    Book,    No. 

199,367)     23 

Tanner  v.  Hughes  (53  Pa.,  289) 34 

Tate,  Samuel  P.   (1  P.  D.,  449) 468 

Taylor,  George  r.   (55  Tex.,  97) 150 

Taylor,  Wm.  B.   (9  P.  D.,  360) 468 

Teeter,    Edward    H.    (22    Fee    P.    L. 

Bk.,    438) 376 

Teller,  United   States  r.    (107  U.  S. 

Rep.,  64) 219 

Terry,  Cleveland,  Columbus,  etc.,  R. 

Co.  V.   (8  Ohio  St.,  570) 14 

The    Commissioner    of    Pensions    (4 

P.  D.,  225) 469 

The    Inhabitants    of    Twining,    The 

King  V.   (2  B.  &  Aid.,  387) 247 

The    King    v.    The    Inhabitants    of 

Twining  (2  B.  &  Aid.,  387) 247 

The  Laura  (114  U.  S.,  441) 470 

The  Proctor  (12  Wall.,  702) 207 

Thomas  v.  Thomas  (124  Pa.,  646) __  498 

Thompson,  .Teannette  (7P.  D.,  262)_  330 
Thompson,   John   B.    (26   Fee   P.    L. 

Bk.,    244) 376 

Thompson,    Margaret    L.    (9    P.    D., 

139)    500 

Thompson,  Matilda  A.  (30  Fee  P.  L. 

Bk.,    70) 171 

Till,  William  A.   (8  P.  D.,  159) 71 

TImberlake     t\     Brewer      (59     Ala., 

108)    368 

Tisdale   v.    Conn.    Mutual    Life    Ins. 

Co.   (26  Iowa,  170) 245 

Toal,  James   (7  P.  D.,  35) 144 

Trask,  Napoleon  B.  (9  P.  D.,  113)  _  359,  496 

Travers,  Alice  E.  (1  P.  D.,  110) 441 

Trickey,  Hartwell   (8  P.  D.,  84) 81 

Tryphene  (5  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  223) 468 

Tubah,  Catherine  (8  P.  D.,  82)___  257,386 
Tweed,    Insurance    Company    v.     (7 

Wall.,   52) 494 

U. 

Ubelhoer,  Harris  v.  (76  N.  Y.,  169)  _  14 
Ulrich,    Christian,    alias    Ernest     (4 

P.  D.,  411) 305 

United  States  v.  Anderson   (9  Wall., 

56)    207 

United  States,  Brown  v.   (113  U.  S., 

568)    470 

United  States  v.  B.  &  Mo.  Riv.  R.  R. 

(98  U.   S..   334-341) 470 

United  States  v.  Emory   (112  U.  S. 

Rep.,  510) 409 


Paga 
United  States   v.  Fisher   (2  Cranch, 

358)    467 

United   States  v.   Freeman    (3   How- 
ard,   565) 260,283 

United    States    v.    Gilmore    (8   Wall, 

330)    470 

United  States  v.  Graham  (110  U.  S., 

219-221)    470 

United  States  v.  Greathouse  (4  Saw- 
yer, 472) :{fi7 

United  States  v.  Hall  (98  U.  S.,  343)  81 

United    States,    Harrison    v.    (20    C. 

Cls.  Rep.,  122) 219,414,431 

United    States    v.    Hill    (120    U.    S., 

169)    470 

United   States  v.   Johnston    (124   U. 

S.,   236) 470 

United  States,  McElrath  v.    (102  U. 

S.,  438) ' L___       207 

United   States   v.   North    (112   U.   S. 

Rep..  510) 409 

United  States,  Philbrick  v.    (120  U. 

S.,   52-59) 470 

United   States  v.  Teller    (107   U..S. 

Rep.,  04) 219 

United   States,  Young  v.    (97   U.   S., 

62)    368 

Utica,    Peach    v.     (10    Hun.    N.    Y., 

477)    14 


V. 


Van   Buren   v.   Cockburn    (14   Barb., 

N.  Y.,  122) 34,248 

Vansickle,  George  (8  P.  D.,  336).  144,156 

W. 

Wabash,   Maloy  v.,  etc.,  R.   Co.    (84 

Mo.,    270) 14 

Walker,  Samuel  H.,  Mary  E.,  widow 

of  (7  P.  D.,  197) 312 

Wangelin,    Emma   T.,    widow    (9    P. 

D.,    76) 322 

Ward  V.  Dulaney  (23  Miss.,  410 )__  34,248 

Watkins,  Augusta  (6  P.  D.,  63) 36 

West,  Alvin  (7  P.  D.,  74) 25 

West  V.   N.   J.,   etc..  Trans.   Co.    (32 

N.  J.  L.,  91) 14 

West,  Sarah  E.   (3  P.  D.,  115) 63,328 

Weatherford,     Weatherford     v.     (20 

Ala.,    548) 37 

Whalen,  Anna  M.  (9  P.  D.,  346)  ___  468 
Whallan,  Jessie  M.,  widow  (8  P.  D., 

131)    442 

Wheeler,  Bessie  (9  P.  D.,  155) 257 

Whitaker,  E.  W.  (6  P.  D.,  179)__  471,473 
Whitaker  v.  Morrison  (1  Fla.,  29 )_  34,248 
White,  .Tob  (7  P.  D.,  312)  ___  147,283,294 
White,  Lockhart  v.  (18  Texas,  102)    36,247 

Wilber,  (irace  v.   (12  Johns,  68) 492 

Wilkerson,   Henry   M.,   minors  of   (2 

P.  D.,  251) 81 

Wilkinson    v.    Payne    (4    Durn    and 

East's  Rep.,  468) 248 

Willett  V.  Com.  (13  Bush.,  Ky.,  230)  36 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


39 


Page. 
Williams,  Francis  M.  (3  P.  D.,  401).       126 
Williams,     Joseph     C.      (7     P.     D., 

218)    156,489 

Williams,    Mary    J.,    v.    Newel    Kil- 

burn   (88  Mich.,  279) 140 

Wilson,  Albert  (8  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  184)  _       256 
Winn    V.    Lowell     (1    Allen,    Mass., 

177)    14 


Page. 

Wolhart,  Jacob  (8  P.  D.,  226) 152 

Wood,  Deddrick  v.   (15  Pa.  St.,  9)__  467 

Wyman,  Shapley  v.  (124  Mass.,  118)  14 

Y. 

Yates  V.  Houston   (3  Tex.,  433) 247 

Yell,  Pennington  v.  (11  Ark.,  212)  __  34 

Yokel,  Charles  (8  P.  D.,  431) 400 


LAWS  CITED  AND  CONSTRUED. 


United  States  Statutes  at  Large. 


Page. 

1790,  April  30,  military  age 490 

1795,  March  3,  military  age 490 

1799,  March  2,  revenue  cutters 96 

1802,  March  16,  military  age 490 

1812,  January   11,   military  age 490 

1813,  January  20,   military  age 490 

1813,  January  29,   military  age 490 

1814,  December  10,  military  age 490 

1848,  July  19  (sec.  5),  honorable  dis- 
charge      410 

1850,  September  28,  military  age_-_  490 

1862,  February  13,  military  age 490 

1864,  July  4: 

Declarations   47 

Military   age 490 

1873,    March    3    (sec.    21),    nonresi- 
dents      437 

1877,  February  28,  rate 404 

1879,    February    19,    honorable    dis- 

chai-ge    410 

1879,   March   3: 

Limitation     160 

Schedule   rates 67 

1882,  July  25: 

Nonresidents 437 

(Sec.   5)   double  pensionl__  420 

1882,  August  7  : 

Adulterous    cohabitation  —  58, 

324,  327 

Marriage 81,  251,  498 

1882,  August   8,    payment 58 

1883,  March  3,  third  grade 125 

1884,  July  4,   attorneys 362,377 

1886,   March   19,  rate 403 

1886,  August  4  : 

Amputation 70 

Increase 204 

Rate 400 

1887,  January  29: 

Civilian  employees 347 

Desertion 382 

Disability    341 

Gilpin's  battalion 108 

Revenue  cutters 96 

Service 369,507 

1888,  August  27,  deafness 67 

1890,  June  27  : 

Adulterous  cohabitation 116 

Civilian  employees—  346,  360,  466 

Commencement 102,  189,  216 

Death   in   service 311 


1890, 


1892, 


1892, 


1892, 
1893, 


1893, 
1894, 
1895, 


June  27 — Continued.  Page. 

Declarations    40, 

42,  93,  167,  223,  272 

Dependence 1,  2, 

76,  249,  254,  299,  318,  320,  502 

Desertion 155,  382 

Disability    106,  156,  263 

Disability — age 68 

Disloyalty 146,  279,  294,  366 

Dropping 50 

Fee 136 

Helpless  minor 9,  26,  353 

(See.  3)   helpless  minor 454 

Honorable  discharge 123, 

144,  408,  413 
Increase     on     account     of 

minors    17 

Insane  minors 226 

Length    of   service 119 

Marriage    30 

Medical  examination 71 

Militia    21 

Minor's  pension 151 

Pilot 304 

Rank — rate 406 

Rate   404,  486 

Rate — practice   '.       435 

Rate — reduction 413 

Reduction    344 

Reduction — rerating 83 

Reimbursement       and      for 

wrong  payment 149 

Revenue  cutters 395 

Service 15,  126,  207 

Special  act 297 

Vicious  habits .252 

July  14: 

Aid  and  attendance.  307,  349,  481 

Commencement 503 

Disability    423 

July  27  : 

Desertion 382 

Service 143,  178,  206 

August  5,  service,  nurses 188 

January  5 : 

Commencement 323 

Powell's  battalion 172 

December   21,   notice 166 

July  18,  inspection  of  papers.       475 

March  2: 

Accrued   pension 8,  276,  393 

Nonresidents 438 


40 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


1895,  March  2 — Continued.  Page. 

Rating   4 

1896,  March      8,     presumption      of 
death   .-       201 


Page. 

1896,  March  6,  commencement 65 

1896,     March     13,     presumption     of 

death    201 


Sections  of  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States. 


471.  Orders 478 

471.   Payment 58 

1116  to  1118.   Military  age 491 

2757.  Revenue    cutters 96,  182 


4692.  Service    

4693.  Service — militia 

4693.  Desertion 

4603,  4694.   Desertion 


362 

23 

382 

255 


4698J.  Commencement 259 

4702.   Accrued    pension 

4702.  Death    cause 

4702.  Legitimacy  


8 
359 

80 


4702.  Special  act  and  general   law.  420 

4703.  Legitimacy   80 

4705.  Marriage — legitimacy 81 

4706.  Legitimacy   80 

4707.  Limitation    505 

4713.  Anterebellion    service 220 

4714.  Declarations 7" 

4716.  Disloyalty 146,  279,  294,  366 

4744.  Specialist    73 

4766.  Payment 58 

4876.  Attorneys 377 


State  Statutes. 


Indiana,     R.     S.,     1896,     sec.     1024, 

marriage    7 

Maryland,   Stat.   1786,  ch.  4,  sec.  7, 

legitimacy : 7 

Missouri,  R.  S.,  sec.  4475,  legitimacy.         83 

New  York,  3  R.  S.,  sec.  2232,  mar- 
riage and  divorce 200 


Texas,  R.  S.,  sec.  2843,  marriage 

Virginia,  Code  of  1873,  pages  85  and 
850  ;  Code  of  1860,  page  529,  mar- 
riage   


209 


PENSION  DECISIONS -VOLUME  10. 


TABLE  OF  CASES  CITED. 


A. 


Page. 


Aab,  George  (32  Fee  P.  L.  Bk.,  292)  149 
Abry,    Mary   C,    widow   of   John    D. 

(8  P.   D.,  346) 60 

Act    of    Congress,    May,    1792    (sec. 

1625,  Rev.  Stat.) 256 

Act   of   Congress,   Feb.    27,    1801    (2 

Stat.  L.,  103) 307 

Ague,  Matilda   (9  P.  D.,  327)-   247,286,288 

2  Am.  and  Eng.  Enc.  of  Law  (654) _  182 

5  Am.  and  Eng.  Enc.  of  Law  (845)-  285 
7   Am.   and    Eng.    Enc   of   Law    (pp. 

70,73)    425 

28  Am.  and  Eng.  Enc.  of  Law  (49)-  310 
American  Life  Ins.  Co.,  Hancock  r. 

(62    Mo.,    26) 291 

Ames,  Joel   (8  P.  D.,  171) 110 

Amos,  George  W.    (8  P.  D.,  271)-  249,250 

Anderson,  Margaret  J.   (4  P.  D.,  67)  224 

Arendes,  Margaretha  (8  P.  D.,  425) _  136 

Arnold,  Cheney  v.   (15  N.  Y.,  345)—  123 

Athey.  Sa villa  (8  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  .373)—  420 

Attorney-General    (2  Op..   .532) 234 

Attorney-General    (10  Op.,  .562) 420 

Attorney-General    (12  Op.,  66) 405 

Attorney-General   (13  Op.,  150) 405 

Attorney-General    (14  Op..  488) 406 

Attorney-General   (15  Op.,   157)—  56,143 

Attorney-General    (17  Op.,  221) 420 

Attorney-General     (19    Op.,    533;    5 

Op.,  97)    133 

Attorney-General    (19  Op.,  535) 134 

Attorney-General   (16  Op..  147) 134 

Ayres,  Phebe  A.,  mother  of  .John  E. 

(6  P.   D.,  30) 247 


B. 


Babb,    Isaac  N.,   alias   John   Dunlap 

(8  P.  D.,  59) 131 

Baldwin,  Maryland  v.  (112  U.  S. 
490)    

Ball,  Burney  v.  (24  Ga.,  505) 

Ball,  T.  W.  (41  Cal.,  29) 137 

Balto.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  .Tames  (95 
U.   S.,  439) 

Banker,  Robert  C.   (8  P.  D.,  302) _. 
Barclay,  Potier  v.  (15  Ala.,  439)  _. 


113 

7 


102 
147 
123 


Page. 
Barleyoung.  John   (7  P.  D.,  453)—         19 

Barlow.  Henry   (9  P.  D.,  347) 136 

Barnes.  James  M.   (8  P.- D.,  94) 136 

Barnnm  r.  Barnum  (42  Md.,  251)—      296. 
.304,  .309.  310.  311 
Barrington   Waterworks   Co.,   Blythe 

V.    (25  L.  J.   Ex.,  213) 102 

Bashaw  v.  State  (1  Yerg.,  177) 123 

Beach  on  Con.  Neg.   (sec.  377) .•       104 

Beatrie,     Schmisseur     v.     (147     111., 

210)    - 6 

Bell,  Henry  M.   (5  P.  D.,  196) ___   169,170 

Bennet,  Graham  v.  (2  Cal.,  .503) 123 

Bennett,  Charles  T.   (7  P.  D.,  1)-  2^7,264 
Bennett    r.    Smith     (21    Barb.    Ch., 

4.39)    241 

Berlin,  H.  S.    (4  P.  D.,  97) 361 

Bernstein,    Adolph    (7    P.    I)..    229- 

231)    109,245,419 

Bianchi,  Matteo  (9  P.  D.,  220) 420 

Bidlake,  Daniel   (3  P.  D.,  27) 197 

Bigelow,  Proctor  r.   (38  Mich.,  282- 

283)    122,123,308 

Bishop  Crim.  Law  (par.  989) 171 

Bishop  on  . -ar.  and  Div.  (par.  156)-   364 
Bishop  on  Mar.  and  Div.  (sec.  283 

,et  seq.)  —  122,  .308 

Bishop  on  Mar.,  Div.,  and  Sep.  (par. 

6.33)  

Bishop  on  Mar.,  Div.,  and  Sep.  (par. 

936  and  note  5) 

Bishop  on  Mar.,  Div.,  and  Sep,  (pars. 

942-943)  223 

Bishop  on  Mar.,  Div.,  and  Sep.  (sec. 

961)  - 

Bishop  on  Mar.,  Div.,  and  Sep.  (sec. 

1567)  

Bissell,  Meister  v.    (96  U.  S.,  83  ;  2 

Black,  599)   159 

Blackburn     i\    Crawford     (3    Wall., 

175)  114,121,309,342 

Blackman,  Crawford  v.  (17  Md.,  49)-       308 
Blake,   Loughborough   v.    (5   Wheat., 

317)    

Blake  v.  National  Banks   (23  Wall., 

307)    

Blanchard    v.     Lambert     (43     Iowa, 

228) 

41 


296 


296 


165 


285 


117 


101 


318 


42 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Page. 
Blaiipy,  Mary,  Carmena,  John  v.  (16 

La.  An.,   245) 390 

Blue,  Ann  (7  P.  D.,  122) 290 

Blythe     v.     Barrington     Waterworks 

Co.  (25  L.  J.  Ex.,  213) 102 

Bone,  Wallace  G.  (2  P.  D.,  310)  __  249,  250 
Bonnaveau,  Theresa  (8  P.  D.,  507 )_        140 

Bonner,  William   (1  P.  D.,  346) 451 

Boone    v.     Purn^ll     (28     Md.,     607, 

627)  114,296,304,308 

Borden.  Washington  (6  P.  D.,  17) __       258 

Boss,  Marie  L.   (10  P.  D.,  36) 158,363 

Boulden     r.     Mclntyre     (119     Ind., 

574)    182 

Bowen,  Sellmon  i\  (8  Gill  &  John- 
son, 50) 304 

Bowie  V.  Stonestreet  (6  Md.,  418) __       425 

Boyle,  James  (1  P.  D.,  149) 197 

Bradt,  Hiram  H.  G.  (5  P.  D.,  282) __  21 

Brady,  Mary  (9  P.  D.,  305)_  136,169,170 
Bremer     r.     Briggs     (32     Ohio     St., 

478)    211,214 

Brewer,  Cheseldine  v.  (Har.  &  McH., 

152)    114,  123 

Briggs,     Bremer    v.     (32    Ohio     St., 

478)    211,  214 

Briggs,  Davie  v.  (97  U.  S.,  628)  _  163,291 
Brinkley  v.  Brinkley  (50  N.  Y.,  185)  123 
Brooks,  Elizabeth,  widow  of  Samuel 

S.    (265   L.   B.,   244) 183 

Brown,  Charles  F.  (3  P.  D.,  92) 53 

Brown,  George  A.   (8  P.  D.,  309)  ___  13 

Brown,  John  C.    (IP.  D.,  321) 451 

Brown  v.  United  States   (113  TI.  S., 

568)    137 

Brunswick,  Newbury  v.   (2  Vt.,  151)        123 

Bryant,  Chas.  J.   (7  P.  D.,  299) 252 

Buckley,  Mary  C.  (8  P.  D.,  195) ___  296 
B.  and  Mo.  Riv.  R.  R.,  United  States 

r.   (98  U.  S.,  334-341) 137 

Bull  V.  Schuberth   (2  Md.,  38) 425 

Burney  v.  Ball   (24  Ga.,  505) 7 

Burnham,   John    (4   P.   D.,  93)___  249,250 

Burton,  Jeannette  (9  P.  D.,  31) 425 

Bush,  mother  of  Patrick  (5  L.  B.  P., 

140;  Dig.  of  Pens.,  p.  147) 364 

Bush,  Reed  v.   (5  Bim.,  455) 137 

Bush,  Sarah  (9  P.  D.,  114) 136 

Butterfleld    v.    Smith     (101     U.    S., 

570) 285 

Butterworth  v.  Hoe  (112  U.  S.,  50)  _       405 


Calvert,  Floyd  v.  (53  Miss.,  37) 106 

Camel,  McCarter  v.  (1  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

Ch.,  455) 291 

Cargile  v.  Wood  (63  Mo.,  501) .    344 

Carley,  Timothy  L.  (7  P.  D.,  12)___  361 
Carmena,  John,  v.  Mary  Blaney   (16 

La.  An.,  245) 390 

Carmichael  v.  State   (12  Ohio,  n.  s., 

553)    123 

Carmichael  v.  State  (20  o.  s.,  553) _  214 
Cartwright    v.    McGowan    (121    HU 

388)    5 


Page 

Case  V.  Case  (17  Cal  ,  598) 123 

Caton,  James  (3  P.  D..  121) 172,175 

Caward,  Everett   (2  P.  D.,  297) 451 

Chandler,  Stewart  v.  (2  Bush.,  278)_       158 

Chase,  Sarah  N.  (7  P.  D.,  543) 249 

Cheney  v.  Arnold  (15  N.  Y.,  345)  ___  123 
Cheseldine    v.    Brewer     (1     Har.     & 

McH.,    152) 114,123 

Chester,    Londonderry   r.    (2    N.    H., 

268)    123 

Childers,    Isaac    B.     (358    L.    B.,    p. 

396) 414-415 

Chollar,  Caroline  (4  P.  D.,  103) 374 

Christie,  Indiana  (10  P.  D.,  15) 166, 

220,  222,  344 
Clark,    Josiah    W.    (9    P.    D.,    o.    s., 

462)    420 

Clark,  Rose  v.  (8  Paige,  574) 123 

Clark,  Sarah  (7  P.  D.,  47) 147 

Clayton  v.  Wardell  (4  Comst.,  230)  _  345 
Clayton  v.  Wardell  (4  N.  Y.,  230)  __  123 
Coal    Run    Coal    Company    v.    Jones 

(127   111.,   379) 5 

Cobb,  Railroad  Co.  v.  (35  o.  s.,  94)  _  214 
Colby,  Rowland  A.,  widow  of   (7  P. 

D.,   24) 420 

Cole    V.    Cole     (153    Ills.,    585    and 

note)    6,182 

Cole,  Russel  S.   (4  P.  D.,  141) 125 

Colgin,  Susan   (5  P.  D.,  127) 355,357 

Collector.  Gardner  v.  (5  Wall.,  511)  101 
Collector,  Hadden  r.  (5  Wall.,  112) _  135 
Collins,  Hallett  v.  (10  How.,  174)  __  123 
Collins,  Wilkie  v.  (48  Miss.,  496)—-  182 
Commissioner  of  Pensions   (4  P.  D., 

225)    137 

Commissioner   of   Pensions,   Long  v. 

(Sup.  Ct.  D.  C,  Feb.,  1894)  _.___  176 
Commissioner     of     Pensions,     July, 

1897   (9  P.  D.,  93) 253 

Commonwealth  r.   Marshall    (62  Pa. 

St.,    328) 135 

Commonwealth  v.  Stump  (53  Pa.  St., 

132) 123 

Comstock,  Harriet  (10  P.  D.,  220)  __  343 
Coney,  Angelina  (7  P.  D.,  390) ___  182,184 
Congressional    Record    (No.    289,    p. 

5945)    246 

Conray,  Catharine  (L.  B.,  318,  p.  9)  _       223 

Cooley  on  Torts   (674) 104 

Copes  V.  Pearce  (7  Gill.,  247) 308 

Copes  and  Adams  v.  Pearse  (7  Gill., 

263)    304 

Cotton,  Walton  v.   (107  U.  S.,  64)  __       421 

Covey,  Daniel   (7  P.  D.,  453) 413 

Cox,  Mary  A.  (3  P.  D.,  313) ___  53,91,208 
Grain,    minors   of  Joseph    (4    P.   D., 

358)    76 

Crawford,    Blackburn    v.     (3    Wall., 

175)    114,121,309,342 

Crawford  v.  Blackman  (17  Md.,  49)_       308 

Crawford,  Joseph  (7  P.  D.,  582) 110 

Crawford,  Robert  (1  P.  D.,  153) 321 

Cullen,  James  (6  P.  D.,  72) 355,357 

Cunningham  v.  Cunningham  (2  Dow 

P.  C,  482) 296,309,345 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


43 


Pag-e. 


li:i 
136 


Curtis,    Fanny    (colored)     (2    P.    D, 
159)    

Cushman,  Henry  (7  P.  D.,  408) 

1>. 


Daly,  Thomas  (2  P.  D.,  220) 140 

Darby,      Edward      Lesser      v.       (12 

Wheat.,   207) 137 

Darling.  Elizabeth  (10  P.  D.,  244)  _  303,  428 
Davie  r.  BrigRS  (07  U.  S.,  628)  __  163,291 
Davis,    minors    of    .Tohn    (9    P.    D., 

151)    268 

Deddrick  v.  Wood   (15  Pa.  St.,  9)  __  135 

Deering  on  Neg.   (sec.  12) 104 

Denison  v.  Denison  (35  Md.,  361) __  113, 
307,311,432 

Dennis,  Annie  (9  P.  D.,  243) 118 

Dickerson  &  Brown  (49  Miss.,  373) _  106 
Digest    of    Pension    Laws    (1885,    p. 

496,  sec.  3  ;   12  Stat.  L.,  566,  567 )_  300 

Douglas  V.  Pike  (101  U.  S.,  677)  ___  137 

Downard,  Ida  M.   (7  P.  D.,  290) 364 

Downev,    Robertson    v.    (127    U.    S., 

607)^ - 137 

Dudgeon,  Joseph  A.   (9  P.  D.,  413)^  176 

Duel,  U.  S.  V.   (172  U.  S.,  576) 405 

Dumaresly  v.  Fishly  (3  A.  K.  Marsh., 

368)    123 

Duncan  v.   Duncan    (10  Ohio,   n.   s.. 

181)    123 

Durkee,  Tames  A.  (8  P.  D.,  152)  ___  253 
Duval,  James   (9  P.  D.,  218)  _   176,249,250 

Dyer,  Hattie  G.   (7  P.  D.,  160) 147 

E. 

Eason,  Joseph  M.  (31  Fee  P.  L.  Bk., 

168)    202 

East,  George  (5  P.  D.,  243) 274 

Eastrldge,  Mary  E.  (8  P.  D.,  5)__  249,250 
Edwards  edition  Phillips  Ev.  (599) _  123 
Ehler,  Keiffer  r.   (18  Pa.  St.,  388)  __        136 

Eibel,  Kate  (7  P.  D.,  179) 355,357 

Eisenlohr,  O'Gara  v.   (38  N.  Y.,  296)        123 

Encyclopedia  of  Law  (p.  317) 171 

English,  Erwin  r.  (61  Conn.,  502) __  182 
Erwin  v.  English   (61  Conn.,  502)  __        182 

Estill  V.  Rogers  (1  Bush.,  62) 158,442 

Evans,  Cynthia   (5  P.  D.,  188) 288 

Ex  parte  Wells  (18  How.,  307) 171 

F. 

Fain,  Eliza  (7  P.  D.,  572) 247,288 

Fane,  Amanda  (10  P.  D.,  254) 363 

Farnshill     v.     Murray      (1      Bland, 

479)    114,304 

Farrell,    Edward,    et    al.    (7    P.    D., 

532)    18 

Felber,  Elizabeth  (4  P.  D.,  329) 342. 

344,  364 

Fenton  v.  Reed   (4  Johns.,  52) 123 

Few,  Annie  E.   (8  P.  D.,  95) 136 

Finch,  Hale  v.   (104  IT.  S.,  261) 285 

Finney  v.  State  (3  Head,  544) 343 

Fisher  v.  Hardin  (1  Paine,  55) 411 


Page. 
Fisher,  United  States  v.   (2  Cranch, 

358)    135 

Fishly,     Dumaresly     v.      (3     A.     K. 

Marsh.,    368) 123 

Fleck,  George  W.  (7  P.  D.,  343) __   136,  171 

Floyd  V.  Calvert  (53  Miss.,  37) 106 

Ford,  Daniel  B.   (9  P.  D.,  137) 145 

Ford,  Harriet  (5  P.  D.,  239) 342.  .344 

Foster  v.  Hawly  (8  Hun.  N.  Y.,  68) _  229 
Foutenette,    Pierre   f.    (25    La.    An., 

617)    36 

Freeman  on   Judgments    (sees.   127- 

334)    285,411 

Freeman,  United  States  r.   (3  How., 

565)    419 

Frisbie  v.  United  States   (157  U.  S., 

160-166)    40S 

Fuller,  Sally  R.   (10  P.  D.,  238) 389 

G.  . 

Gaines,  Patterson  v.  (6  How.,  550)  _  159 
Gardner  v.  Collector  (5  Wall.,  511)  J  101 
Gardener,  Malinda  v.  (24  Ala.,  719) _  364 
Gardiner,  Hallowell  v.  (1  Me.,  93)  __        136 

Gazzam,  Stone  v.  (46  Ala.,  269) 159 

Geiger,  Helen  M.,  widow  of  David  M. 

(9  P.   D.,   28) 139-140 

Gemberling.  George  W.  (1  P.  D.,  213)  451 
German,  Eunice  D.  (7  P.  D.,  503) __  344 
Gierhart,  Emma  (6  P.  D.,  155) ^___  364 
Gilbert,   George   W.    (9   P.   D.,   279)         73, 

210,  420 
Gilmore,  United  States   r.    (8  Wall., 

330)    137 

Girod  V.  Lewis  (6  Mart.  La.,  559)  __  36 
Girod  V.  Lewis  (7  Mart.  La.,  559)-  364-365 
Goodman    v.     Goodman     (28    L.    J.. 

ch.    1) 308 

Graham  v.  Bennet  (2  Cal.,  503) 123 

Graham,  United  States  v.  (110  U.S., 

219-221)    - 137 

Gray,  Alice  (7  P.  D.,  134) 286,288 

Gray  v.  Larrimore  (4  Shaw,  638) 411 

Greenawalt    v.    McEnelley     (85    Pa. 

State  Rep.,  352) 120,  425 

Greenleaf  on  Ev.   (par.  460) 308 

Greenleaf  on  Ev.   (par.  462) 123 

Greenleaf  on  Ev:  (par.  201,  note  1)_       425 

Greenleaf  on  Ev.  (sec.  523) 285 

Grisham  v.  State  (2  Yerg.,  589) 123 

Grooms,    Sarah    J.     (7    P.    D.,    207, 

210)      30,  288 

H. 

Hadden  r.  Collector   (5  WalL,  112)__  135 

Hale  V.  Finch  (104  U.  S.,  261) 285 

Half  hill,     Elizabeth     J.     (8     P.     D., 

467)    355,357 

Hall  V.  United  States  (92  U.  S.,  27 )_  ,  105 

Hallett  V.  Collins  (10  How.,  174) ___  123 

Hallowell  v.  Gardiner  (1  Me.,  93)  __  136 

Halso  r.  Seawright  (65  Ala.,  432)—  293 

Halstead,  Henry  (2  P.  D.,  221) 197 

Hancock  r.   American   Life   Ins.   Co. 

(62  Mo.,  26) 291 


44 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


Page. 

Hantz  V.  Sealy  (6  BInn.,  405) 128 

Hardin,  Fisher  r.   (1  Paine,  55) 411 

Harris,  Catherine  (widow)    (2  P.  !>., 

o.  s.,  256) 109 

Harris,    Elisha    (29   Fee   P.    L.    Bk., 

406)    147 

Harris   v.   Harris    (8   Bradwell,    HI., 

App.,    57)  -- 6 

Harrison    r.    United    States    (20    C. 

Cls.   R.,   122) 176 

Harvey,  Rachael    (7  P.  1).,  600) 344 

Hawliins,  I^ttie   (colored)    (8  P.  D., 

22)     36,158,432,441 

Hawly,   Fosters.  (8  Hun,  N.  Y.,-68)_       220 
Hayden,  Sarah  C.   (8  P.  D.,  364)  ___         16, 

162,  166,  310 

Hayes.  James  A.  (7  P.  D.,  190) 245 

Haynes  r.  McDermott  (82  N.  Y..  41)        123 
Haynie,  Henry  N.   (9  P.  D.,  304)  ___       136, 

182,  184 
Ilecliert  /•.  Hile's  Administrator   (90 

Va.,   390) 17 

Henry,    Parton    r.    (1    Gray,    Mass., 

119)    _^ 122,308 

Hervey  r.  Hervey  (2  W.  Bl.,  877)—       308 

Hiclis,  James  L.  (8  P.  D.,  518) 9,  20 

HIggins,  Annie,  widow  of  Henry  (10 

P.  D.,   110) 307,308 

Hile's  Administrator,  Heckert  r.  (90 

Va.,  390)   17 

Hill,  John  J.   (7  P.  D.,  143) 208 

Hill,    United    States   v.    (120    V.    S., 

109)    137 

Hilton,  George  D.   (8  P.  D.,  182) ___        148 

Hix,  Rachel  M.  (7  P.  D.,  259) 109 

Hoe,  Butterworth  r.  (112  U.  S.,  50)  _  405 
Hoepfner,  Louisa  S.  (9  P.  D.,  497)__  16, 
166,  220,  222,  224 
HoCfman,  Geo.  M.  (10  P.  D.,  268)  ___  360 
Holmes  v.  Holmes  (6  La.  R.,  463)  __  123 
Holtzman,  Thomas  r.  (18  D.  C,  62)  110,  .307 
Holtzworth,  Eveline  (7  P.  D.,  48)  __  71 

Holyoke  Co.  v.  Lyman  (15  Wall.,  500)        108 

Hook,  Samuel  (8  P.  D.,  367) 209 

Houston  r.  Moore  (5  Wheat.,  1) 356 

Houston,  Yates  r.  (3  Tex.,  433) 216 

Howard  v.  Howard   (6  Jones,  N.  C, 

235)    264 

Howard,  Lafayette  (8  P.  D.,  230)  __       268 
Howey,  Pearson  t.  (6  Halst.,  12)___        123 

Hoyt,  Birney   (1  P.  D.,  70) 249,250 

Hughes,  .Tuda  (7  P.  D.,  107) 158 

Hughes,  William  H.   (9  P.  D.,  152)  _       177, 

322,  323 
Hunt's  appeal  (86  Pa.  St.,  294 )_  16,  166,  296 
Hurst,  Albert  G.  (14  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  472)  321 
Hurst,  Joseph  S.  (13  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  292)  88 

Hurst,  Mary  Ann  (9  P.  D.,  406) 303 

Hutchins  v.  Kimmel  (31  Mich.,  126)       122, 

123,  156,  308 

I. 

Instructions  (7  P.  D.,  240) 140 

Instructions  (9  P.  D.,  93)____ 310 

Instructions  to  Commissioner  of  Pen- 
sions (4  P.  D.,  382) -  355 


J. 

Page. 
Jackson  v.   Jackson  (80  Md.,  176;  82 

Md.,  17)  114,304,308,309,311 

Jackson  v.  Winne  (7  Wend.,  47)___  123 
James,    Balto.,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    (95 

U.  S.,  439) 102 

Jarnigon  r.  Jarnigon  (12  Lea,  292)  _  344 

.Tenkins,  Turner  v.  (1  II.  &  G.,  161)  _  425 
Jewell  r.  .Tewell  (1  How.,  U.  S.,  219- 

232)    308 

Johannes,  Charles  W.  (9  P.  D.,  341 )_  30 

Johns,  William  B.  (2  P.  D.,  293) ___  140 
.Johnson,  Charles  A.  (7  Fee  P.  L.  Bk., 

504) 201 

Johnson,  Demas,  Sinai  D.  .Johnson  r. 

(45   Mo.,   595) 364 

Johnson,  Isaac  (7  P.  D.,  105) 201 

John.son  r.  Johnson   (114  111.,  611)  _  6 
Johnson,    Sinai   D.,    r.   Demas   John- 
son   (45  Mo.,  595) 364 

Johnson,  Minors  of  William  (9  I'.  I>., 

452)    25 

Johnston,   United  States   r.    (124  U. 

S.,   236) 137 

Jones  r.  .Jones  (45  Md.,  144,  159  ;  48 

Md.,  391)     114,304,308,310,311 

Jones,    Coal    Run   Coal    Co.    r.    (127 

111.,  379)    5 

Jones,  Jacob  S.   (7  P.  D.,  73) 201 

Judd,  John  Henry  (33  Fee  P.  L.  Bk., 

203)    413 

Judson,  Phineas  D.  (8  P.  D.,  185)  _   191,192 

K. 

Keating.  .James  (7  P.  D.,  280)  ___  191,192 

Keeling,  Stones  v.   (5  Call,  143) 16 

Keiffer  v.  Ehler  (18  Pa.  St.,  .388)  ___  136 
Kellogg,  Mil.  Rwy.  Co.  v.   (94  U.  S., 

474)   ' 102 

Kemp,   Smelting  Co.   v.    (104   U.   S., 

6.36,640)    405 

2  Kent  Com.   (90,  91) 122,308 

Kent,  Fredrika,  widow  of  Robert  E. 

(10  P.  D.,   211) 229,319 

Ketchum  v.  Kimmel  (31  Mich.,  126) _  164 

Keyes  v.  Keyes   (2  Fost.,  553) 123 

Keyes,  Samuel  W.   (7  P.  D.,  78) 151 

Kiley,  David   (8  P.  D.,  449) 50 

Kille,  Mary  (7  P.  D.,  550) 244,246 

Kilmarnock,  Miio  v.  (11  Me.,  455)—  136 

Kimmel,  Hutchins  v.  (31  Mich.,  126)  _  122, 

123,  156,  308 

Kimmel,  Ketchum  v.  (31  Mich.,  126)  _  164 

Kinney,  .L  F.   (4  P.  D.,  132) 364 

Kite,  Alfred  (9  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  232) 235 

Knabe  v.  Rice   (106  Ala.,  516) 293 

Koch,  United  States  v.  (21  Fed.  Rep., 

873) 408 

Koler,  Geo.  and  Albert  (5  P.  D.,  99).  364 


Lake,  .Josephine  (177  P.  L.  B.,  74)  __ 

Lambert,    Blanchard    v.     (43    Iowa, 

228) 


318 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


45 


Page. 
Lambert,  United  States  v.  (2  Cranch 

C.   C,   137) 11-t 

Larrimore,  Gray  v.  (4  Shaw,  G38)__  411 
Larsen.    Lars     (28    Fee    P.    L.    Bk., 

380) -'01 

Latham,  Emily   (5  P.  D.,  170) 76 

LauRhlin,  John  (8  P.  D.,  52) 25 

Laughlin,  John   (9  V.  D.,  466) 135, 

161),  170,  182,  184 

Lazarus,  O'Rear  r.  (8  Colo.,  608)  _—  440 

Lee,  Shadrick  (9  P.  D.,  214) 50 

Leonard,  K.  S.   (9  P.  D.,  194 »__•____  136 

Leslie.  Helen  M.  (6  P.  D.,  255) 140 

Lesser,  Edward,  v.  Darby  (12  Wheat., 

207) 137 

Lessor,  George  (8  P.  1).,  114) 56 

Lewis,  Girod  v.  (6  Mart.  La.,  559 )__  36 
Lewis,  Girod  v.  (7   Mart.  La.,  559 )_   364,  365 

Lewis,  Mercy   (5  P.  D.,  293) 2 

Lewis,  Samuel  H.   (7  P.  D.,  69) 192 

Lincoln  r.  Tower   (2  McL.,  473) 411 

Livingston,    Summerlin     r.     (15    I^a. 

An.,  519) 395 

Londonderry    v.    Chester     (2    N.    IL, 

268) 123 

Long    V.    Commissioner    of    Pensions 

(Sup.  Ct.  D.  C,  Feb..  1894) 176 

Longee,  Augustus  IL  (7  1'.  I)..  586).  131 
Loughborough    r.    Blake    (5    Wheat., 

317) 117 

Louisiana   Mutual    Insurance   Co.    v. 

Tweed   (7  Wall.,  52) 102 

Lyman,    Holyoke   Co.    v.    (15    Wall., 

500) 108 

Lyon,  Euroda  H.,  widow  of  Matthew 

M.    (7  P.  D.,  215) 140,215 

Mc. 

McCarter  r.  Camel  (1  Barb.  (N.  Y.), 

ch.  455) 291 

McCarthy,  Maria  (10  P.  D.,  118)  ___  307 

McCollum,  Mary  B.  (6  P.  D.,  93)___  216 
McCormick,     United     States     r.     (1 

Cranch  C.   C,   593) 114 

McCullum,    Abram    (6    P.    D.,    o.    s.. 

Ill) 21 

McDermott,  Haynes  v.  (82  N.  Y.,  41 )  _  123 
McDonough,   Henry    (6   P.   D.,   o.   s., 

475) 22 

McEnelley,    Greenawalt    r.     (85    Pa. 

State  Rep.,  352) 120,425 

McGowan    v.    Cartwright    (121    111., 

388) ■ 5 

Mclntyre,     Boulden     v.     (119     Ind., 

574) 182 

McLaughlin,  John  H.  (2  P.  D.,  85) __  451 
McMahon,  Bernard  J.   (Jane,  alleged 

widow  of)    (L.  B.,  178,  p.  151)—-  424 

McNabb,  John  O.  (7  P.  D.,  43) 423 


M. 


Mackey,  Francis   (8  P.  D.,  535) 184 

Malinda  r.  Gardener  (24  Ala.,  719 )_       364 
Manning,  Reynolds  v.  (15  Md.,  510)  _       425 


Page. 
Marshall,  Commonwealth  v.   (62  Pa. 

St.,   328) 135 

Marshall,  James   M.  (8  P.  D.,  395)_   249,250 

Martin,  Jackson  (7  P.  D.,  265) 249,250 

Martin  v.  Mott  (12  Wheat.,  19) 356 

Maryland    v.    Baldwin    (112    U.    S., 

490) 113 

Matter  of  Taylor  (9  I'aige,  611) 123 

Mayo,  Americus  (7  P.  D.,  531) 191,192 

Meister  v.  Bissell    (96  U.   S.,  83;    2 

Black,  599) 159 

Meister  v.  Moore  (96  U.  S.,  76) 110, 

213,  307,  308 

Merritt,  Maria  (10  P.  D.,  157) 363 

Milo  V.  Kilmarnock  (11  Me.,  455)—  136 
Mil.   Railway   Co.   v.   Kellogg    (94  U. 

S..   474) 102 

Mitchell,  David  K.   (1  P.  D.,  62) 197 

Monholland,    Frances    A.     ( 7    P.    D., 

494) 1 285 

Monteton,  Wilhelmina  K.   (10  P.  D., 

12) 220,  222 

Moore,  Houston  v.   (5  Wheat.,  1) 356 

Moore,  Meister  v.  (96  U.  S.,  76) 110, 

122,  159,  213,  307,  308 

Moore,  State  r.    Ul  U.  S.,  160) 291 

Moran,  Margaret   (9  P.  D.,  492) 102 

Morris,   widow  of  Elwood    (9   P.   D., 

353) 25 

Morse,  Thankful   (1  P.  D.,  56) 224 

Mott,  Martin  v.   (12  Wheat,  19)  _—       356 

Mueller,  Fritz  (2  P.  D.,  192) 451 

Mundchandler,  Stewart  v.   (2  Bush., 

278) 159 

Murphy,  State  v.   (6  Ala.,  765) 123 

Murray,  Fornshili   v.    (1   Bland   Ch., 

482) 114,  304 


N. 


Nash,  De  Witt  C.  (10  P.  D.,  141)  _  355,  357 
National  Banks,  Blake  v.   (23  Wall., 

307) 101 

National  Bank,  Railroad  Co.  v.   (102 

U.  S.,  14) 285 

Newbury  v.  Brunswick  (2  Vt.,  151 )_  123 

Newell,  Williams  v.  (68  Mich.,  27-©)-  164 

Newman,  Henry   (8  P.  D.,  532) 219 

Nix,  Jacob  (4  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  260) 234 

North,  United  States  v.   (112  U.  S., 

510) 140 

Northfield  v.  Vershire  (33  Vt.,  110)-  123 

Norton,  John  (9  P.  D.,  382) 56, 

142,  355,  357 


O'Gara  v.  Eisenlohr  (38  N.  Y.,  296)  _       123 

Oiler,  Jacob   (7  I'.  D.,  411) 13 

Ollendorf,  Minors  of  Louis   (8  P.  D., 

272) 147 

O'Rear  r.  Lazarus   (8  Colo.,  680)  __-        440 
Owen,    Watts    et    al.    r.     (62    Wis., 

512) 227.  2:iO 

Ozborn,  Sarah  H.   (7  P.  D.,  317)-  245,419 


46 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


P. 

Page. 
Palmer,  Ellen  A.  (7  P.  I).,  363)-—  220,  222 
PartoD    v.    Henry    (1    Gray    (Mass.), 

119) 122,  30S 

Patterson   v.  Gaines   (6  How.,  550)-        159 

Patterson,  State  v.  (2  Ired.,  846) 123 

Patton  V.  Philadelphia   (1  La.  Ann., 

98) 123 

Pearce's     Succession     (30     La.     Ab., 

1168)    30 

Pearse,  Copes  and  Adams  v.   (7  Gill. 

247-263)    304,308 

Pearson  r.  Howey  (6  Halst.,  12) 123 

Peck,  Starr  r.    (1  Hill,  270) 1        123 

Peet  i:  Peet  (52  Mich.,  464-467 )_   156,216 

Pendleton,  John   (5  P.  D.,  217) 76 

Pennabaker,  C.  D.  (2  P.  D.,  257) ___       361 
People,    Stewart,    dependent    father 

of  John  J.    (32  Fee  P.   L.   Bk.,   p. 

395)    431 

Pepper,  Helen  L.   (9  P.  U.,  500) 162 

Philadelphia,  Patton  v.   (1  La.  Ann., 

98)    123 

Philbrick  v.  United  States  (120  U.  S., 

52-59)    ^ 137 

Philips,  Isaac  N.   (3  P.  D.,  377) 136 

Philips  r.  State  (15  Ga.,  518) 136 

Pierre   v.   Foutenette    (25   La.   Ann., 

617) 36 

Pike,  Douglas  v.  (101  U.  S.,  677)-—        137 

Pinckley,  Ann  F.   (8  P.  D.,  446) 71 

Potier  V.  Barclay  (15  Ala.,  439) 123 

Preston,  Hilliard  (8  P.  D.,  374) 197 

Presbury,     Williard     V.     (14     Wall., 

676)    117 

Price  v.  Price  (124  N.  Y.,  598) _—  23S,  243 
Proctor  V.   Bigelow    (38   Mich.,   282, 

283)    122,123,308 

Pulver,  Jonas  W.   (10  P.  D.,  227)—       363 
Purnell,     Boone    v.     (28     Md.,     607, 

627)  114,296,304,308 


R. 


Railroad  Co.  v.  Cobb  (35  U.  S.,  94 )_  214 
Railroad  Co.  v.  National  Bank   (102 

U.   S.,   14) 285 

Randolph,  Burton  (2  P.  D.,  335)  —  -  420 
Reading    Fire    Ins.    and    Trust    Co. 

(113    Pa.,    204) 296 

Redgrave  v.  Redgrave  (38  Md.,  97 )_  114, 
304,  308,  309,  311 

Reed  v.  Bush  (5  Binn.,  455) 137 

Reed,  Fenton  v.   (4  Johns.,  52) 123 

Reed,  Webster  v.   (1  How.,  437) 285 

Reeves   on    Domestic   Relations    (88, 

200)    308 

Reeves  on  Domestic  Relations   (198, 

200)    122 

Reynolds,   John  W.    (IP.   D.,   o.   s., 

223)    136 

Reynolds  r.  Manning  (15  Md.,  510)  _  425 

Rice,  Knabe  r.   (106  Ala.,  516) 293 

Rich,  John  M.  (4  P.  D.,  234) 2 


Page. 
Richardson    r.    Smith    (80    Md.,    89, 

189)    304,308,311 

Ridenour,  Margaret  (5  P.  D.,  146) -_  248 

Ridgway,  Basil  T.  (9  P.  D.,  300) ___  136 
Roach.  Nannie   (7  P.  D.,  80)-   159,441,442 

Robbins,  Alexander  (7  P.  D.,  358) __  144 
Robertson    r.    Downey     (127    U.    S., 

607)    : - 137 

Rogers,   Estill  r.    (1   Bush.,   62)__   158,442 

Rohn.  Preston  M.   (10  P.  D.,  73)  _—  323 

Rood,  State  v.   (12  Vt.,  396) 123 

Roper,  Spencer  v.   (13  Ired.   (N.  C), 

333)    291 

Rose  I-.  Clark   (8  Paige,  574) 123 

Rose  r.   Rose   (67  Mich.,  619) 220,222 

Ross  /•.  Ross  (34  La.  Ann.,  860) 36 

Ross.   William    (8  P.   D.,  407) 140 

Ruhl,  John  H.    (8  P.  D.,  351) 82 

Runnel,  David  G.   (2  P.  D.,  91) 451 

S. 

Schmidlin,  Elizabeth  (6  P.  D..  200) _  224 

Schmisseur  v.  Beatrie  (147  HI.,  210)-  6 

Schoepf,  John   (7  V.  D.,  19)__- 168 

Schuberth,  Bull  r.   (2  Md.,  38) 425 

Schuler,  widow  of  John  H.   (8  P.  1)., 

462)    20 

Scott,  Nancy  E.  (6  P.  D.,  185) 412 

Scott,  United  States  v.  (25  Fed.  Rep.. 

470,    472)    405 

Sealy,  Hantz  v.   (6  Binn.,  405) 123 

Seawright,   Ilalso   r.  (65  Ala.,   432)  _  293 

Sell,   Isaac   (2  P.  D.,   172) 249,250 

Sellmon  r.  Bowen  (8  Gill  and  John- 
son, 50)    304 

Server,  Ann  Eliza   (7  P.  D.,468) 165, 

224,  344,  397 

Shannon,  Andrew  J.   (7  P.  D.,  64)—  133, 

136,  184 

Sherman  and  Red.,  on  Neg.  (sec.  25)  _  104 
Showalters,     Simon     P.     (7     P.     D., 

478)    110 

Silvis,  Amos  (4  F.  P.  L.  Bk.,  6) 199 

Sinla,  Polly  Ann  Chulaska  (7  P.  D., 

353) 36,  158 

Smart    r.    Whaley    (6    Smed.    &    M., 

Miss.,    ch.    308) 390 

Smelting   Co.    v.    Kemp    (104    U.    S., 

636,    640)    405 

Smith,     Bennet    v.     (21     Barb.,     ch. 

439)    241 

Smith,    Butterfleld    v.     (101    U.    S., 

570)    285 

Smith,   J.   Ambler    (Atty.)    (7   I*.   D., 

69) 192 

Smith,  Nanna  J.   (9  P.  D.,  359) 54 

Smith,    Richardson   v.    (80   Md.,    89, 

189)    304,308,311 

Smith  V.  Wood  (31  Md.,  293) 425 

Snow,    Davis   S.    (1    Fee   P.    L.    Bk., 

305)    200 

1   Starkie  Ev.    (45) 123 

Statesman,  minors  of  Samuel    (2  P. 

D..   o.    s.,   345) 76 

State,  Bashaw  v,  (1  Yerg.,  177) 123 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


47 


Page. 
State,    Carmichael    r.    (1-'    Ohio,    N. 

S.,  553)   123 

State,  Carmichael  v.   (20  O.  S.,  214)_  553 

State,  Finney  v.   (3  Head,  544) 343 

State,  Grisham  v.  (2  Yerg.,  589) ___  123 
State   f.    Moore    (11    Ired.    (N.    C), 

160) ; , 291 

State  V.  Murphy  (6  Ala.,  765) 123 

State  V.  Patterson  (2  Ired.,  346)—  123 

Starr  r.  Peck  (1  Hill,  270) 123 

State,  Philips  v.   (15  Ga.,  518 136 

State  V.  Rood  (12  Vt.,  396)  ___..—  123 
State,    Swartz    v.     (33    Ohio    C.    C. 

Rep.,  62)   211 

State    ^\    Worthingham     (23    Minn., 

523)    216 

Stet2sell,  Frances  (9  P.  D.,  9) 25 

Stewart  v.  Chandler  (2  Bush.,  278) _  158 
Stewart  on  Husband  and  Wife  (sec. 

9)    159 

Stewart    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(par.    46)     296 

Stewart    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(sees.  23,  74,  150,   151) 105 

Stewart    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(sec.   126)    318 

Stewart    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(sees.    76,    132) 165,213 

Stewart    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(sec.  426)    285 

Stewart  v.  Mundchandler    (2  Bush., 

278)    ^ 159 

Stine,  Jasper  M.   (9  P.  D.,  488) __  356,357 

Stone  V.  Gazzam  (46  Ala.,  269) 159 

Stones  V.  Keeling  (5  Call,  143) 16 

Stonestreet,  Bowie  v.  (6  Md.,  418) __  425 

Strange,  Thomas  H.   (7  P.  D.,  36) __  47, 

48,50 

Striggon,  Elizabeth  (8  P.  D.,  12)___  151 
Stump,  Commonwealth  v.   (53  Penn. 

St.,    132) 123 

Stymest   v.    Stymest    (4    Dist.    Rep. 

Pa.,    305)    182 

S.  C.   (10  Am.  Rep.,  460) 123 

S.  C.   (37  Am.  Rep.,  538) 123 

Spencer   v.    Roper    (13    Ired.    N.    C, 

333)    291 

Spires,   Jacob  C.    (30   F.   P.   L.   Bk., 

480)    200 

Summerlin    v.    Livingston     (15    La. 

An.,  519) 395 


T. 


1'allman,  Eveline  S.  (6  P.  D.,  361 )__  140 
Tasher,    Samuel    B.    (30    Pee    P.    L. 

Bk.,  489)   201 

Tate,  Samuel  P.  (1  P.  D.,  449) 136 

T-aylor's  Evidence  (sees.  140,  517)  __  308 

Taylor,  John  T.   (1  P.  D.,  281) 451 

Taylor,  Matter  of  (9  Paige,  611) ___  123 

Taylor,  Wesley  W.   (1  P.  D.,  359)—  451 

Taylor,  William  B.   (9  P.  D.,  360___  136 
Teller,  United  States  v.    (107  U.  S., 

64)    421 


Page. 
Thatcher,  mother  of  Frederick  (7  L. 

B.  P.,   119) 130 

The  Laura   (114  U.  S.,  441) 137 

Thomas     v.     Holtzman     (18     D.     C, 

62) 110,  307 

Thomas,     Margaret     L.     (9     P.     D., 

139) 162,  167,  223 

Thomas  v.   Thomas    (124   Pa.   Stat., 

646) 16 

Thomas,  William  B.   (9  P.  D.,  139) _  164 

Thompson,  Jennette  (7  P.  D.,  262)  _  287 

Tinnin,  Harriet  (8  P.  D.,  218) 106 

Toller,  William   (7  P.  D.,  545) 363 

Toller,  William,  minors  of  (10  P.  D., 

75) 363 

Totten,  Nathan  (7  P.  D.,  33) 140 

Tower,  Lincoln  v.  (2  McL.,  473) ___  411 
Trask,     Napoleon     B.      (9     P.     D., 

113) 53,  91,  208 

Treatise  on  the  Practice  "of  the  Pen- 
sion Bureau  (p.  117,  par.  2) 80 

Trickey,  Hartwell  (8  P.  D.,  84) 363 

Tryphene  (5  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  291) 136 

Turner  v.  Jenkins  (1  H.  &  G.,  161 )__  425 
Tweed,  Louisiana  Mutual   Insurance 

Co.  V.    (Wall.,  52) 102 

XJ. 

Ulrich,  Christian,  alias  Ernest  (4  P. 

D.,    411) 169,  170 

United  States,  Brown  v.   (113  U.  S., 

568) 137 

United  States  v.  B.  and  Mo.  Riv.  R. 

R.   (98  U.  S.,  334-341) 137 

United    States   v.    Duel    (172    U.    S., 

576) 405 

United   States  v.   Fisher    (2  Cranch, 

358) 135 

United  States  v.  Freeman  (3  How- 
ard,   565) 419 

United  States,  Frisbie  v.   (157  U.  S., 

160,   166) 408 

United   States  v.   Gilmore'  (8   Wall., 

330) i:{7 

United  States  v.  Graham  (110  U.  S., 

219-221) 137 

United  States,  Hall  v.  (92  U.  S.,  27)  105 
United    States,    Harrison    v.    (20    C. 

Cls.   R.,   122) 176 

United    States    v.    Hill    (120    U.    S., 

169)-__- 137 

United   States   v.   Johnston    (124   U. 

S.,    236) 137 

United  States  v.  Koch  (21  Fed.  Rep., 

p.     837) 408 

United  States  v.  Lambert  (2  Cranch 

C.  C,   137) 114 

United     States     v.     McCormick     (1 

Cranch  C.  C,  593) 114 

United  States  v.  North   (112  U.  S., 

510) 140 

United  States,  Philbrick  v.   (120  U. 

S.,    52-59) 137 

United  States  v.  Scott  (25  Fed.  Rep., 

470,  472) —       405 


48 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


Page. 
United  States  v.  Teller   (107  U.   S., 

64) 421 


Van  Alstine,  mother  of  Abram  (4  P. 

D.,    349) 248 

Vandergriff,    widow    and    minors    of 

John    (5  P.  D.,  151) 374 

Vershire,  Northfield  v.  (33  Vt.,  110) _       123 


^v. 


Walker,  Mary  E.,  widow  of  Samuel 

H.   (7  P.  D.,  197) 83,355,357 

Walton  V.  Cotton  (19  How.,  355)—  421 
Warden,  Clayton  v.  (14  N.  Y.,  230)  _      123, 

345 
Warmoth,  Isaac  S.   (3  P.  D.,  324 )__       420 
Washington,    Patsey,    widow    of    Jo- 
seph   (8  I*.   D.,   363) 433 

Watson,  William  B.  (9  P.  D.,  395)  _  402 
Watts    et    al.     i'.    Owen     (62    Wis., 

512) 227,  230 

Webster  v.  Reed  (11  How.,  437) ___       285 

Wescott,  Alonzo   (1   P.  D.,  316) 197 

West,  Sarah  E.,  (3  P.  D.,  115) 288 

Whalen,  Anna  M.   (9  P.  D„  346)  ___       136, 

182,  184 
Whaley,    Smart   v.    (6   Smed.    &    M.. 

Miss.,  ch.  308) 396 

Wharton  on  Ev.   (sec.  1298) 165 

Wharton  on  Neg.    (sec.  300) 104 

Wheaton,  Chas.  C.  (9  P.  D.,  156) __  258 
Wheeler,  Bessie  C.  (9  P.  D.,  155)-  355,357 
White,  Job  (7  P.  D.,  312) 88 


White,  Peter  F.  (2  P.  D.,  399) 200 

Wiley,   Rebecca    (10  P.   D.,  304) 432. 

Wilkie  r.  Collins   (48  Miss..  496) ___  182 
Williams,    Elizabeth    M.     (9    P.    D., 

117)  ___ 147 

Williams,  minors  of  Peter   (2  P.  D,, 

383) 76 

Williams,  minors  of  Peter   (7  P.  D., 

545) ^__  78 

Williams  v.  Newell   (68  Mich.,  279) _  164 
Williams,   Susan   (10  P.  I).,  82)__   355,357 

Williams  r.  Williams   (46  Wis..  464)  227 

Williamson,  Isaac   (1  P.  D.,  7) 197 

Williard  v.  Presbury   (14  Wall.,  676)  117 

Wilson,  David    (9  P.  D.,  404) 21 

Wilson,  Hannah   (Mex.  War  widows, 

3  P.  D.,  283) 325 

Wilson,  William  (10  P.  D.,  232)  __   249,250 

Winne,  Jackson  v.   (7  Wend.,  47) 123 

Wood,  Cargile  v.  (63  Mo.,  501) 344 

Wood,  Deddrick  r.   (15  Pa.  St..  9)__  135 

Wood,  Smith   r.    (31  Md.,  293) 425 

Worthingham,    State   v.    (23    Minn., 

523) 216 


Y. 


Yardley  (75  Pa.  St.,  207,  212) 296 

Yardley's    Estate    (25    P.    F.    Smith, 

25) 296 

Yates  V.  Houston  (3  Tex.,  433) 216 

Yokel,  Charles  (8  P.  D.,  31) 13 

Young,  Elizabeth   (9  P.  D.,  44) 139 

Young,  Jacob  (9  1\  D.,  147) 39 

Young,  Elizabeth,  widow  of  William 

E.   (9  P.  D.,  44) -.  427 


LAWS  CITED  AND   CONSTRUED. 


United  States  Statutes  at  Large. 


fage. 
1801,  February  27  (2  Stat.  L.,  103), 

Maryland  laws 307 

1814,  March  4,  half-pay  pensions 420 

1832,  June  7,  half  pay  to  widows 420 

1861,  July  22,  arrears  of  pay 363 

1861,  March  2,   attorneys 404 

1862,  March    25,   service 59 

1862,  July  4,  attorneys 404 

1862,  July  17,  attorneys 405 

1863,  March  3   (12  Stat.  L.,  762)___  116 

1864,  July  4  : 

Attorneys 404 

Colored    widows    and    chil- 
dren   160 

Limitation 419 

1864,  July  14,  draft 357 

1866,  June  6,  attorneys 401 

1866,  July  28  : 

Arrears  of  pay 363 

Attorneys 405 

1867,  March    29    (joint    resolution), 
attorneys 404 

1868,  July  27,  minors 466 


1868, 
1869, 
1870, 
1872, 
1872, 
1873, 
1874, 


1878, 
1879, 


1880, 
1882, 


Page. 

July  29,  attorneys 405 

April   10,  attorneys 404 

July  8,  attorneys 404 

May  15,  military  age 357 

May  21,  attorneys 404 

March  3,  minors 466 

June  18 : 

Helpless  minor 226 

Rating    100 

June  20,  attorneys 404 

March  3  : 

Commencement 142 

Minors    466* 

June  16,   rate 445 

August  7  : 

Adulterous    cohabitation 153, 

158,  286 
(Amending       sec.       4702), 

proof   of   marriage 16,  17 

Desertion —       171 

Marriage    213,231,363,442 

Minor's  pension 124 

Proof  of  marriage 164, 165 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


49 


Page. 

1883,  March  3,   rate i'2 

1884,  June  3,  rerating — specialist —         99 
1884,  June  18,  rate 445 

1884,  July  4  : 

Attorneys 404 

Fee  agreements 199 

Sees.  3-4,  fee 148,  149,  403 

1884,  July  5,  desertion 171 

1885,  February     15     (joint    resolu- 
tion), Missouri  militia 19,20 

1886,  March  19  : 

Attorneys • 405 

Widow's    rate 12,111,301 

1886,  May  17,  desertion 171 

1887,  January  29  : 

Increase 64 

Remarriage    324 

Service — Mexican    war    _   139,  424 

Widow's  means  of  support-        28, 

29,  30,  31,  32 

1888,  August  27,  rating 261 

1890,  March  4  : 

Aid    and    attendance 172 

Helpless  minor 226 

Rate   443 

1890,  June  27  : 

Appeals    458 

Attorneys 404,  460 

Civilian    135 

Commencement,   act   March 

6,    1896    73,  252 

Declarations  —  amendments      177, 
365 

Dependence 9,  67,  299,  326 

Dependent  parents 428 

Desertion 355 

Disability— rate    256 

Discharge     82,  141 

Dishonorable  discharge 14 

Disloyalty    72 

Fee — election    61,  167,  415 


1890,  June  27 — Continued.  Page. 
Hawkins     Taylor     Commis- 
sion          270 

Helpless    minor    22,  224,  368 

Marriage    266 

Marriage  of  colored  soldiers       157 
Marriage  of  insane  person_       192 

Marriage   in   Missouri 362 

Marriage  of  slaves 441 

Minor's   pension 124 

Missouri  militia 19 

Pending  claim  accrued  pen- 
sion         109 

Pilot 182 

Practice — rate    397 

Rate — reduction 176 

Rating 13,261 

Reimbursement — fee    150 

Remarriage — mothers    244 

Restoration — increase 37 

Section  4716,  R.  S 210 

Service 8,58,402 

Service,,  length  of 169 

Service  in  rebellion IS 

1890,  July    1,    declarations,    execu- 
tion of 293 

1891,  March    3,    attorneys — fee 199, 

404,  405,  412 

1892,  July   14: 

Aid  and  attendance 172 

Increase — commencement 66 

1892,  July  27,  Indian  wars 26 

1893,  January  5,  increase 64 

1894,  July  18,  attorneys 404 

1895,  March  2,  accrued  pension 159,  322 

1896,  March  6: 

Commencement 73,  250,  400 

Reopening 321 

1896,     March     13,     presumption     of 
death 7 

1898,  June  8,  construing  special  act_         99 

1899,  March  3,  attorneys 236,403 


Sections  of  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States. 


Page. 
Constitution,  sec.  2,  art.  2,  militia—       356 

164.  Order  rating 262,256 

225.  Order  rating 262,  257 

471.  Practice 391 

1094.  Service — civil  service 133 

1642.  Militia 356 

1644.  Militia 356 

1792.  May  8   (sec.  1625  R.  S.),  mil- 
itary  age 356 

2037.  Marriage  of  slaves 76,  77 

2037.  Proof  of  marriage 363 

4692-3.  Rating 261 

4693.  Civilian  employees 135,  138,  170 

4693.   Service 133 

46981.  Increase — fee 37,  39 

4695.  Widows— rate  l 301 

4702.  Civilian  employee !__        170 

4702.  Death  cause 54,  56 

4702.  Marriage 410 

13070—06 i 


Page. 
4702.  Minor's  pension 226,  227,  465 

4704.  Legitimacy 104,  107,  231 

4705.  Act    June    27,    1890,    proof   of 
marriage 432 

4705.  Death  cause 191 

4705.  Legitimacy   231 

4705.  Marriage  of  colored  soldiers 157 

4705.  Marriage  of  slaves 442 

4705.  Minors 75 

4705.   Proof  of  marriage 363 

4705.  Widows  of  colored  soldiers_   104,  107 

4707.   Act  March  18,   1886 298 

4707.  Dependence 29,  31 

4707.  Dependent   parents — rate 428 

4707.  Legitimacy 363 

4707.  Mother's  claims 244 

4708.  Remarriage 325 

4709.  Minors 466 

4713.  Limitation — minors 417 


50 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Page. 

4714.  Declarations,  execution  of 292 

4715.  Double  pension 84,282 

4715.  Election 61 

4710.  Aliens 72 

4716.  Disloyalty 87,  125 

4716.  Act  June  27,  1890 210 

4718.  Accrued  pension 322 


Page. 
4718.   Pending  claim 109 

4722.  Missouri   militia 19,  20 

4723.  Colored  soldiers 104,  108 

4724.  Double  pensions 282 

4725.  Half-pay  pensions 420 

4786.  Fee — fee  agreements 149 


State  Statutes. 


Alabama,     Civil    Code     (1876)     sec. 

702   293 

Iowa,  Code,  sec.  2526 123 

Kentuclty,  February  14,  1866,  mar- 
riage of  colored  persons 158,  442 

Maryland,  1877,  marriage 113 

Maryland,     Stats.     1777,    sees.    3-5, 

marriage 307 

Maryland,  1878,  Code,  art.  51,  mar- 
riage         432 

Maryland,  Code,  vol.  1,  art.  35,  sec. 

2,  marriage , 304 

Michigan,    Revised   Statutes    (1882), 

vol.  2,  chap.  237,  sec.  2,  marriage-       195 


Page. 
Mississippi,    December   1,    1869,   art. 

12,  sec.  22 106 

Missouri,  1865,  Stats.,  68,  marriage-       364 

New  Yorli,  Code,  Civ.  Pro.  (1848), 
sees.  1743,  1744-1754,  marriage, 
nullity 241,  243,  389 

New  York,  I^aws  of  1896,  chap.  272, 

sec.  4,  marriage 242 

I'ennsylvania,  Stats.,  sec.  4839,  adul- 
tery        343 

Wisconsin,  R.  S.,  sec.  2274,  legiti- 
macy         264 


PENSION  DECISIONS— VOLUME  11. 


TABLE  OF  CASES  CITED. 


Page. 
A. 

Aab,  George  (9  P.  D.,  377) 49,203 

Abbott,  James  J.  (8  P.  D.,  79) 491 

Alabama  Great  Southern  R.  R.  Co., 

United  States  v.   (142  U.  S.,  615- 

621)    _  79 

Allen,  Elishup  P.  (9  P.  D.,  19) 492 

Alexander,  A.  P.   (6  P.  D.,  40) 432 

Alexander,  Enoch  (11  P.  D.,  151 )__  441 
American  and  English  Encyclopedia 

(3,  pp.  757,  758) 117 

American  and  English  Encyclopedia 

(8,  pp.   654-656) 202 

American  and  English  Encyclopedia 

(10,   pp.   346-347) 293 

American  and  English  Encyclopedia 

(12,   pp.   147-271) 229,233 

American  and  English  Encyclopedia 

(22,   p.   789) 340 

American  and  English  Encyclopedia 

(23,  pp.  448,  452) 79,117 

Ammerman,  William  M.  (1  P.  D.,  5)  56 

Anderst)n,  Ellen  (6  P.  D.,  197) 33 

Andrew  v.  Simmons  (68  Miss.,  732)-  340 
Assistant  Attorney-General  (5  P.  D., 

310)    13 

Assistant  Attorney-General  (6  P.  D., 

297)    250 

Attorney-General    (7  Op.,   149  ;  2  P. 

D.,   403) 34 

Attorney-General   (15  Op.,   157)—  334,366 

Attorney-General   (19  Op.,  1) 361 

Attorney-General    (20  Op.,  322) 12,13 

Ayres,  Hinkley  v.   (105  Cal.,  357) __  145 


Babcock,  Robins  B.  (7  P.  D.,  285)  _  430,  493 

Barnes,  James  M.   (8  P.  D.,  94) 184 

Beatrie,     Schmisseur     v.     (147     111., 

210)    48,321 

Beaulieu  v.  Ternoir  (5  La.  An.,  480)        343 

Beers,  Edmund  O.  (7  P.  D.,  113) 475 

Beevers,  People  v.   (99  Cal.,  286) 145 

Bennett,  Charles  T.   (7  P.  D.,  1)  ___       336 

Better  v.  Better  (50  Mich.,  51) 83 

Bice,  William  (9  P.  D.,  21) 12 


Page. 

Bird,  Daniel  (10  P,  D.,  105) 167 

Bishop,    Marriage    and    Divorce    (1, 

88,  155,  163) I 444 

Bishop,  Marriage  and  Divorce   (sec. 

283)    119,446 

Bishop,    Marriage    and    Divorce    (1, 

659,  661,  663)  — 340 

Black,  on  Judgments  (1,  sec.  218) 229 

Blackburn   v.   Crawford    (3   Wallace, 

175)    280 

Blanchard    v.    Lambert    et    al.     (43 

Iowa,  228) 66 

Blasini   et  al.   v.   The   Succession   of 

Blasini   (30  La.  An.,  1368) 343 

Blitch,  Kathrina  (11  P.  D.,  247)  ___       325 

Boate,  William  (9  P.  D.,  375) 430 

Borthwick,  Charles  F.,  alias  Frank- 
lin Brown  (10  P.  D.,  249) 10 

Bouvier's  Institutes   (29) 79 

Bower  et  al.,  Senser  et  al.  v.  (1  Pen- 
rose &  Watts  Pa.,  450) 323 

Boyd,  Arthur  (1  P.  D.,  105) 193 

Boyd,  Josephine  G.   (8  P.  D.,  1) 495 

Briggs,  Davie  v.  (97  U.  S.,  628) 48, 

212,  236,  502 

Bronoel,  Mary  E.  (8  P.  D.,  387) 432 

Brown,  Alexander  (39  Fee  P.  L.  Bk., 

315)    494 

Brown,  Charles  F.  (3  P.  D.,  92)__  301,  460 
Brown,  Dickerson  v.  (49  Miss.,  373)  268 
Brown,  Henrietta  (3  P.  D.,  92)  __  301,460 

Brown,  Minerva  (11  P.  D.,  266) 324 

Bruce,  Thomas  (4  L.  B.  P.,  261)_  111,164 

Buckley,  Ex  parte  (53  Ala.,  55) 117 

Buckley,  Mary  C.  (8  P.  D.,  195)  ___       161 

Burgess,  John  A.  (9  P.  D.,  170) 149 

Burnham,  Martha  G.   (5  P.  D.,  o.  s., 

102)    61 

Burton,  Jennette  (9  P.  D.,  31)____  66,324 
Burton,  Spears  v.  (31  Miss.,  555)  —       270 


Calvert,  Floyd  v.  (53  Miss.,  37) 268 

Carley,  Timothy  L.   (7  P.  D.,  12) _  432,512 
Carroll    v.    Carroll   et   al.    (20   Tex., 

731)    66 


51 


52 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


Page. 
C'artwright   et   al.    i'.   McGown    (121 

111.,   388) 320 

Charmbury,   Executor  of,   Powei'S  v. 

(35  La.  An.,  630) 343 

Cheely  v.   Clayton    (110  U.   S.,   701, 

705)    408 

Chew   Heong  v.  United   States    (113 

U.   S.,  559) 79 

Childers,  Isaac  B.  (10  P.  D.,  397) __  453 
Clayton,  Cheely  v.   (110  U.  S.,  701- 

705)    408 

Coal    Run    Coal    Company    v.    Jones 

(127   111.,   379) 321 

Coburn,  Mary   (11  P.  D.,  43) 324 

Cohens  v.  Virginia  (6  Wheat.,  264)  _  359 

Colby,  Caroline  E.  G.   (7  P.  D.,  24 )_  337 

Cole  V.  Langley  (14  La.  An.,  770)  __  343 
Cole,  Russell  S.  (4  P.  D.,  141)___  128,136 
Collins,    alias    Crossweight    (125    L. 

B.,    82) 380 

Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  (3  Dec, 

568)    410 

Compton,  Daniel  (4  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  144)  193 

Conie,  Florence  N.  (2  P.  D.,  58) 61 

Cook,  Thaniel   (5  L.  B.  P.,  118) 85 

Cooper  V.  Cooper  (17  Mich.,  205) 83 

Cooper,  Emma  M.   (10  P.  D.,  434)  _  234,  40!) 

Cotton,  Walton  v.   (17  How.,  355)  __  20 

Couch,  William  C.  (8  P.  D.,  39) 254 

Cox,  Mary  A.   (3  P.  D.,  313) 63,303 

Crump  V.  Morgan  (3  Ired.  Eq.,  91)  _  276 
Crawford,    Blackburn    v.     (3    Wall., 

175)    280 

Crawford,  Robert   (1  P.  D.,  153)___  39 

Cummings,  William   H.(l  P.  D.,351)_  61 

Curran,  John  W.(5  P.  D.,  1) 1 

B. 

Daily,  Daniel   (4  P.  D.,  337) 314 

Dale,  Talbot  (8  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  152) ___  260 
Darling,  Elizabeth    (mother)    (10  I'. 

D.,    244-299) 35,171,249 

Daub,  Gable's  Executor  v.  (4  Wright, 

217)    79 

Davie  v.  Briggs  (97  U.  S.,  628) 48, 

212,  236,  502 
Davis,   Alexander  H.(l   P.  D.,   o.   s., 

486)    192 

Davis  V.  Davis  (10  P.  D.,  403) 203 

Davis,   John    (minors  of)    (9   P.   D., 

151)    449 

Davis,  Margaret  E.  (10  P.  D.,  403 )_  50 

Davis,  Mark  (10  P.  D.,  185) 166 

Davis,  Tennessee  v.  (100  U.  S.,  257)  _  358 
Decatur    v.     Spaulding     (14    Peters, 

606)    35 

Dennert,    John    (32    Fee   P.    L.    Bk., 

199)    26 

Dick,  Robert  M.  (3  P.  D.,  333) 193 

Dickerson  v.  Brown  (49  Miss.,  373 )_  268 

Dilley,  Asa  H.   (11  P.  D.,  257) 421 

Doe,  Nepean   r.    (dem.  Knight,  2  M. 

&  W..  894) 502 

Dolan,  Mary  E.   (11  P.  D.,  62) 110 

Duke,  Rives  v.  (105  U.  S.,  132) 447 


Duryee,  Abram  (3  P.  D.,  276). 
Dyer,  David  H.   (9  P.  D.,  87) 


Paga 

12 

210 


E. 

Earl,  Edwin    (10  P.  D.,  176) 265 

Eastman,  Alexander  (8  P.  D.,  358 )_  512 
Endlich    on    Interpretation    of    Stat- 
utes   (par.    271) 79 

Ellis,  Alphonso  W.  (11  P.  D.,  93) 316 

Ellis  r.  Ellis  (11  P.  D.,  288) 523 

Emmett,  Samuel   (3  P.  D.,  281) 193 

Ewing,  Richard    (8  P.  D.,  44) 410 

F. 

Featherly,  William  (9  P.  D.,  106) __  179 

Fetterly,  Jerome  B.  (10  P.  D.,  460)  _  28 

Floyd  r.  Calvert   (53  Miss.,  37) 268 

Fox,    United    States    v.     (95    U.    S., 

670)    354 

Frank,  Francis  (9  P.  D.,  68) 179 

Freeman  on  Judgments   (2  ed,,  sees. 

127-313)    275,495 

Frink,  Samuel  W.  (35  Fee  P.  L.  Bk., 

139)    150 

Fuller  V.  Fuller   (33  Kans.,  582) ___  99 

G. 

Gable's  Executor  v.  Daub  (4  Wright, 

217)    79 

Gaines,  Patterson  v.   (6  How.,  550)  _  66 

Galpin  v.  Page  (18  Wall.  U.  S.,  350 )_  233 

Gant,  John    (1  P.  D.,   118) 61 

Garner,    Ezra    (32    Fee    P.    L.    Bk., 

257)    ^ 26 

Geiger,  Helen  M.   (9  P.  D.,  28) 164 

Gerard,  Wesley  C.   (4  P.  D.,  51) 61 

Germain,     Louise     C.      (11     P.     D., 

66)' 132,141,324,405 

Gibson,  Murray  v.  (15  How.,  421 )__  79 

Gilbert,  Margaret  (8  P.  D.,  249)  ___  295 
Good,  George  W.,  minor  of  (8  P.  D., 

407)     432 

Goodson,  William   (7  P.  D.,  294) 393 

Gorby,  Sarah   (4  P.  D.,  298) 44 

Gray    i\    Larrimore    (2    Abb.    U.    S., 

542)    233 

Greenleaf  on  Evidence  (1,  sees.  1,  41, 

44,  207) 197,199,473,502 

Guernsey,  Charles  F.  M.    (11  P.  D., 

64)    136 


H. 


Hagarty,    William    H.     (10    P.    D., 

359)    163 

Hall  V.  United  States  (92  U.  S.,  27)  _  168 
Hall,    United    States    v.    (98    U.    S., 

343)    354 

Hamilton,  Zenas   (3  P.  D.,  3) 61 

Hardy,  Calista  M.    (7  P.  D.,  39)_—  216 

Harkins,  Thomas  S.   (IP.  D.,  459)-  85 

Harmon,  James  A.   (129  L.  B.,  7)—  380 

Harris,  Lucinda  (11  P.  D.,  181) 446 

Harvey  v,  Tyler  (2  Wall.,  329) 79 


PENSION   AND  BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


53 


Page. 
Haskell,  United  States  v.    (4  Wash. 

C.   C,   402) 293 

Ilayford,  Ira  W.   (9  P.  D.,  307) 475 

Hedgspeth,  William    (1  P.  D.,  245 )_  136 

Ileinriclis,  William  (10  P.  D.,  321__  336 

Henry,  George  L.   (8  P.  D.,  422) 65 

Henry,    Parton    v.    (1    Gray,    Mass., 

119)     120 

Hervy,  Susan,  Thomas  J.  Parton  i\ 

(67  Mass.,  119) 121 

Heth,    United    States    v.    (3   Cranch, 

298,   399,   413) j__  79 

Higgins,  Annie   (10  P.  D.,  110) 281 

Hill,  John  H.    (7  P,  D.,  585) 475 

Hlnkley  v.  Ayres  (105  Cal.,  357)—  145 

Hobdy  V.  Jones  (2  La.  An.,  944) ___  342 
Hoffman,    Margaret    M.     (9    P.    D., 

227)     55 

Hollis,  Lucius  S.   (10  P.  D.,  414) ___  453 

Holmes  v.  Holmes  (6  La.,  463) 66,342 

Holtzman,    Thomas    v.     (18    D.    C, 

62)    280 

Hooker,  America  (8  P.  D.,  210) 162 

Hope,  William  G.    (182  L.  B.,  400)  _  380 

Horton,  Stephen   (7  P.  D.,  369) 314 

Howard,    Lafayette    G.,    Minors    of 

(8   P.   D.,    230)« 449 

Hubbard,     Louisville,     New     Albany 

and  Chicago  R.  R.  Co.  v.{llQ  Ind., 

193)     229 

Hubbell  et  al.  v.   Inkstein  et  al.    (7 

La.   An.,  252) 342 

Hubee,  William   (20  La.  An.,  97)___  342 

Hughes,  Annie  (8  P.  D.,  455) 168 

Hughes,  State  v.    (35  Kans.,  626)—  97 

Hughes,  William  H.   (9  P.  D.,  1q2)_  336 

Huff  r.  Rawles   (26  Miss.,  471) 66 

Hunter,  Martin  v.  (1  Wheat.,  363)  _  359 
Hunton,  William   (38  Fee  P.  L.  Bk., 

396)    491 

Hurst,   Albert   G.    (14   P.    D.,   o.    s., 

472)    ' 39 


Ingersoll    v.    Ingersoll    (49    Pa.    St., 

249)    82 

Inkstein  et  al.,  Hubbell  et  al.  v.    (7 

La.   An.,   252) 342 

Instructions   (7  P.  D.,  240) 111,164 

Instructions  (9  P.  D.,  93) 39,316 


J. 


Jacobs,  George  (7  P.  D.,  39) 509 

Jetmore  et  al.,  Wiles  v.  (22  Ohio  St., 

271)    276 

Johnson  v.  Johnson  (114  III.,  611)—  321 

Johnson,  John   (9  P.  D.,  349) 478 

Johnson,   William  H.    (34  Fee  P.  L. 

Bk..    245)     493 

Johnson,  William  R.  (4  P.  D.,  167)-  60 
Jones,    Coal    Run   Coal    Company   v. 

(127  111.,  379) 321 


Page, 
Jones,  Hobdy  v.   (2  La.  An.,  944) __   342 

Jones  V.   Jones  (36  Md.,  457) 279 

Judd,  Shorten  v.   (60  Kans.,  73-277)    97 


K. 


Keeling,   Stover  v.    (3   Hen.   and   M. 

(Va.)    288)    116 

Kelsor,  John  S.  (7  P.  D.,  558)—  217,423 
Kellogg    V.    Wait    and    trustee     (12 

Allen,  Mass.,  530) 362 

Kelly,  Michael   (3  P.  D.,  240) 166 

Kendall  v.  United  States  (12  Peters, 

524)    35 

Kent,  Fredrlcka  (10  P.  D.,  211) 99 

Kllburn  v.  Kilburn  (89  Cal.,  46) 145 

Kimball,    John   H.    (11    P.   D.,    124- 

136)    254-328 


li. 


Lalone,  Margaret  (11  P.  D.,  301 )__  443 
Lambert    et    al.,    Blanchard    v.     (43 

Iowa,    228)    66 

Lammon,   Merrill   B.    (38   Fee  P.   L. 

Bk.,  117)   —  520 

Langley,  Cole  v.  (14  La.  An.,  770 )_  343 
Larrlmore,    Gray   v.    (2    Abb.    U.    S. 

542) 233 

Lessor,  George  (8  P.  D.,  114)  _  334,  371,  375 

Levan,  Daniel  Webster  (9  P.  D.,  322)  380 

Lewis,  Charles  G.   (4  P.  D.,  328)— _  487 

Lewis,  Rollin   (9  P.  D.,  216) 512 

Linn,  Matney  v.   (59  Kans.,  613) 97 

Longee,  Augustus  H.  (7  P.  D.,  586)  _  254 
Louisville,  New  Albany  and  Chicago 

R.   R.   Co.   V.   Hubbard    (116  Ind., 

193)    229 

Lyons,  Emily  J.  (261  L.  B.,  288) 23 


M. 


McCabe,  Roslinda  (5  L.  B.  P.,  273)  _  61 
McCarty,    Respublica    v.    (2    Dallas, 

Pa.,  86)   293 

McColIom,  Mary  B.    (6  P.  D.,  93) __  320 

McCorkle,  Robert  (7  P.  D.,  158) 393 

McCoy,  John  R.  (5  P.  D.,  369) 136 

McCuIIum,    Abram    (6   P.    D.,    o.   s., 

Ill)    166 

McFarland,  State  v.  (38  Kans.,  664)  97 
McGown,   Cartwrlght  et  al.   v.    (121 

III.,  388)    320 

McReary,    Stevenson's   Heirs   v.    (20 

Miss.,   56)    269 

Manley,  Randolph  M.  (5  P.  D.,  295)_  12 

Marker  v.  Marker  (11  N.  J.  L.,  257)  83 

Maroney,  Vance  v.  (4  Colo.,  47-49) _  409 

Marshall,  Albert   (5  P.  D.,  226) 166 

Martin  v.  Hunter  (1  Wheat.,  363)—  359 
Martin,  Jackson  (7  P.  D.,  265)—  265,  300 

Martin,  John    (7  P.  D.,   578) 346 

Mason,  Harrison  H.  (4  P.  D.,  244)  __  300 

Matney  v.  Linn  (59  Kans.,  613) 97 


«  Overruled  In  case  of  Minors  of  James  Still  (12  P,  P.), 


54 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Page. 
Maxwell   on    Interpretation   of   Stat- 
utes   (p.   191) 79 

May,  Christian   (8  P.  D.,  71) 401 

Meister  v.  Moore  (96  U.  S.,  76) 280 

Meister  v.  Moore   (96  IT.  S.  Reports, 

78)    119 

Meyer,  William  W.   (3  P.  D.,  246) __  85 

Milford  V.  Worcester   (7  Mass.,  48) _  120 

Miller,  John  S.   (7  P.  D.,  347) 172 

Mitchell,  Taylor  v.  (57  Pa.  St.,  211)  79 
Montgomery,   Rudolph   M.    (3   P.   D., 

41)    314 

Moore,   Edward   W.    (8   P.   D.,   400; 

9  P.  D.,  55) 353 

Moore,  Meister  r.  (96  XL  S.,  76) 280 

Moore,  Meister  v.   (96  U.  S.  Reports, 

78)    119 

Moore,   Spencer  v.    (11   Ired.,  N.   C, 

160)    502 

Morgan,  Crump  v.  (3  Ired.  Eq.,  91 )_  276 

Morris,  Ellie   (9  P.  D.,  353) 479 

Morris,  Walter  (9  P.  D.,  462) 12 

Moyer,  Reuben  (13  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  577)  85 

Muckenstorm,  .Toseph   (10  P.  D.,  61)  457 

Murray  v.  Gibson   (15  How.,  421)  __  79 

Murray  v.  Murray   (6  Or.,  26) 427 


N. 


Nepean    v.    Doe     (dem.     Knight,     2 

M.  &  W.,   894) 502 

Newcomb,  Julia   (5  P.  D.,  419) 520 

Newman,  Henry   (8  P.  D.,  532) 61 

Newman,  Robert  (6  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  228)  61 

Niedhammer,  Alma  (8  P.  D.,  276)  __  302 

Norman  v.  Thompson  (121  Cal.,  620)  145 

Norton,  John    (9  P.  D.,  382) 195, 


240,  245,  333,  363,  375 


O. 


Orr,  Mary  C.   (10  P.  D.,  348) 132 

Ousterhout    Milo  B.   (7  P.  D.,  270)  _         64, 
124,  132,  136,  254 


P. 


Page,    Galpin   v.    (18    Wall.,    U.    S., 

350)    233 

Parsons  on  Contracts  (1  p.  145) 117 

Parton    v.    Henry     (1    Gray,    Mass., 

119)    120 

Parton,  Thomas  J.,  v.  Susan  Hervy 

(67  Mass.,  119) 121 

Patterson  v.  Gaines  (6  Howard,  550)  66 

Paul  V.  Willis   (69  Tex.,  261) 229 

Pedrotti,    Rosa    (35    Fee   P.    L.    Bk., 

231)    172 

Pegram,  Bundle  v.  (49  Miss.,  75) 340 

People  V.  Beevers   (99  Cal.,  286) 145 

People,  Snyder  v.   (26  Mich.,  108)—  298 

Pepper,  Helen  L.   (9  P.  D.,  500) 237 

Peters,  Galen   (9  P.  D.,  102) 512 

Pike,  William  H.   (IP.  D.,  253)—  193 


Page. 

Poland,  Elizabeth  H.   (8  P.  D.,  266)  200 
Potter's    Dwarris    on    Statutes    and 

Con.    (74-162)    79 

Potter,  Joseph  M.   (3  P.  D.,  82) 314 

Powell  V.  Powell    (53   Ind.,  513) ___  232 

Powell  V.  Powell  (27  Miss.,  785) ___  270 
Powers   r.   Executors  of  Charmbury 

(35  La.  An.,  630) , 343 

Predmore,  Byron  A.   (8  P.  D.,  165 )_  349 

Pruitt,  John  (9  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  295) ___  61 

Pulver,  Jonas  W.   (10  P.  D.,  227)—  40 


Q. 


Quinn,  John  (11  P.  D.,  25) 423 


R. 


Rainey,  James  H.   (8  P.  D.,  77)— _  65,254 

Ransom,  Albert  K.  (5  P.  D.,  183)—  391 
Radcliffe,    Kathryne    A.     (11    P.    D., 

171)    249,325 

Rathton,  Nancy  (9  P.  D.,  162) 391 

Rawles,  Hull  v.   (26  Miss.,  471) 66 

Reidy,  Ellas  W.   (7  P.  D.,  132) 193 

Remick,  Alfred  P.  (3  P.  D.,  131 )__  193 
Respublica    t\    McCarty     (2    Dallas, 

Pa.,    86) 293 

Reynolds,  Mary  A.   (8  P.  D.,  287)—  161 

Richards  v.  Richards  (11  P.  D.,  90)_  377 

Rieckoff,  Ernst   (8  P.  D.,  324) 432 

Rives  V.  Duke  (105  U.  S.,  132) 447 

Rohn,  Preston  M.   (10  P.  D.,  72)___  512 

Roper,  Spencer  v.    (13  Ired.,  333) __  502 

Rose  V.  Rose  (50  Mich.,  92) 83 

Rothery,    Mary    Ann,    t;.    Henry    N. 

Rothery    (11   P.   D.,   77) 90 

Rothery,  Henry  N.  (11  P.  D.,  255) __  377 

Rothery  v.  Rothery  (11  P.  D.,  77)—  377 

Ruffino    (116  Cal.,   304) 145 

Ruhl,  John  H.   (8  P.  D.,  351) ■-  487 

Bundle  v.  Pegram  (49  Miss.,  75)  _—  340 


Salisbury,    Lavanchia    L.    (7    P.    D., 

247) 212 

Salmon,  Michael  (3  L.  B.  P.,  9)__  111,  164 

Sarver,  Barnabas   (9  P.  D.,  294) ___  254 
Schmisseur     v.     Beatrie     (147     111., 

210) 48, 321 

Scott,  Nancy  E.  (6  P.  D.,  185) 495 

Seaman,  Benjamin  W.  (9  P.  D.,  o.  s., 

8) 61 

Sedgwick  on  Con.   Stat,  and  Consti- 
tutional Law    (pp.   160-161) 79 

Senser  et  al.  v.  Bower  et  al.  (1  Pen- 
rose &  Watts,  Pa.,  450) 323 

Shaffer,  James  (5  P.  D.,  6) 314 

Shannon,  Andrew  J.  (7  P.  D.,  64)__  184 

Sharer,  David  S.   (9  P.  D.,  189) 432 

Sharon  v.  Sharon  (79  Cal.,  633) 145 

Sharpe,  Marie  (8  P.  D.,  175) 44 

Shattuck,  Joseph  (7  P.  D.,  54) 220 

Shipp,  Annie  M.   (11  P.  D.,  226).  408,495 

Shorten  v,  Judd  (60  Kans.,  73) 97 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


55 


Page. 

Shuttleworth,  Minnie  (3  P.  D.,  50)  _  301 

Sickles,  Caroline   (6  P.  D.,  164) 44 

Simmons,  Andrew  r.   (68  Miss.,  732)  340 

Smith,  Joseph  P.   (7  P.  D.,  11) 509 

Snyder  r.  People  (26  Mich.,  108)  __  298 
Spaulding,    Decatur    v.     (14    Peters, 

606) 35 

Spears  v.  Burton  (31  Miss.,  555)—  270 

Spencer,  John   (7  P.  D.,  152). 410 

Spencer  v.   Moore    (11   Ired.,   N.   C, 

160) 502 

Spencer  v.  Roper  (13  Ired.,  333) 502 

Splcer    t\     Spicer     (16    Abb.     Prac. 

Repts.)     212 

Spires,  .Jacob  C.    (31  Fee  P.  L.  Bk., 

480) 430 

State  V.  Hughes  (35  Kans.,  626) ___  97 
State    of    Iowa    v.    Waite    (81    Fed. 

Rep.,     359) 357 

State  r.  McFarland  (38  Kans.,  664)  97 

State  r.  Walker  (36  Kans.,  297)—  97 
Stevenson's    Heirs    v.    McReary    (20 

Miss.,    56) 269 

Stewart    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(sees.  10,  74,  125,  147,  429) 74, 

76,  82,  160,  168 

Stine,  Jasper  M.    (9  P.  D.,  488) 194, 

240,  287 

Stocker,  Mary  J.   (9  P.  D.,  506) 161 

Stockwell,  Sarah  O.  (10  P.  D.,  428)  _  249, 

326,  515 

Stone,  Charles  (8  P.  D.,  477) 179 

Story,    Equity    Jurisprudence    (1,    c. 

6) 202 

Stover   V.    Keeling    (3    Hen.    and   M. 

(Va.),    288) 116 

Stranahan,  Andrew  (5  P.  D.,  199)  _  300 
Sullivan,  John  (10  P.  D.,  55)___  370,373 
Sutherland  on  Con.  Stat.    (pars.  71, 

72,  107,  160,  206) 79 

Sutherland  on  Stat.  Con.   (sees.  211, 

283,   288,   309) 382,433 

Swett,  Taylor  v.  (3  La.,  33) 342 


T. 


Taylor  v.  Mitchell  (57  Pa.  St.,  211)  _  79 

Taylor  v.  Swett   (3  La.,  33) 342 

Teeter,    Edward    H.    (22    Fee   P.    L. 

Bk.,    438) 430 

Teller,  United  States  v.    (107  U.  S., 

64) 20 

Tennessee  v.  Davis  (100  U.  S.,  257)  358 

Ternoir,  Beaulieu   v.  (5  La.,  An.,  480)  343 

Thomas  r.  Iloltzman  (18  D.  C,  62 )_  280 

Thomas,  Margaret  L.   (9  P.  D.,  139)  _  99 

Thompson,  Jennett  (7  P.  D.,  264) __  79 

Thompson,  Stephen  (7  P.  D.,  26)—  332 

Thomson,  Norman  v.  (121  Cal.,  620)  145 

Threet,  .Tames   (9  P.  D.,  297) 144 

Tinnin,  Harriet  (8  P,  D.,  218). _-  341,446 


Page. 

Todd,  Granville   (3  P.   D.,  383) 497 

Trask,  Napoleon  B.   (9  P.  D.,  113)  __  63 

Trosper,  James  A.   (8  P.  D.,  75) 401 

Tyler,  Harvey  v.   (2  Wall.,  329) 79 

Tyler  v.  Tyler  (171  Mass.,  150) 117 

U. 

United     States    v.    Alabama    Great 

Southern  Railroad  Company   (142 

U.   S.,  615-621) 79 

United  States,  Chew  Heong  v.    (113 

U.   S.,  559) 79 

United  States  v.  Fox  (95  U.  S.,  670)  354 
United  States,  Hall  v.  (92  U.  S.,  27)  168 
United    States    v.    Hall    (98    U.    S., 

343) 354 

United   States  v.   Haskell    (4   Wash. 

C.   C,   402) 293 

United    States    v.    Heth    (3    Cranch, 

298,   399,   413) L 79 

United  States,  Kendall  v.  (12  Peters, 

524) 35 

United  States  v.  Teller    (107  U.  S., 

64) 20 


Vance  v.  Maroney   (4  Colorado,  47- 

49) 409 

Virginia,  Cohens  r.   (6  Wheat,  264)  _       359 
Von  Ottendorf,  Peter  N.  F.  (3  P.  D., 

341) 85 


W. 


Wait  and  Trustee,  Kellogg  v.  (12  Al- 
len   (Mass.),   530) 362 

Waite,    State   of    Iowa    v.    (81    Fed. 

Rep.,  359) 357 

Walker,  State  v.  (36  Kan.,  297) 97 

Walton  V.  Cotton  (17  How.,  355) ___  20 
Weightman  v.  Weightman   (4  Johns, 

ch.     343) 276 

White,  Job   (7  P.  D.,  312) 243 

White  V.  White  (8^  Cal.,  427) 145 

Wilcox,  Charles  (1  P.  D.,  11) 61 

Wiles  V.  Jetmore  et  al.  (22  Ohio  St., 

271) 276 

Willis  Paul  V.   (69  Tex.,  261) 229 

Wilson,  William   (10  P.  D.,  232)  ___  243 

Winkler  Zachariah   (9  P.  D.,  172)  __  380 

Worcester,  Milford  r.  (7  Mass.,  48)  _  120 
Worrell,  Benjamin  F.   (6  P.  D.,  o.  s., 

309) 61 

Wyche    v.    Wyche    (5    Martin,    La., 

201) 342 


Y. 


Yates,  Lizzie  (10  P.  D.,  446) 103 

Young,  Elizabeth  (9  P.  D.,  44) 24,  164 


56 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


LAWS  CITED  AND  CONSTRUED. 


United  States  Statutes  at  Large. 


177G, 
1790, 
1798, 
1799, 

1802, 
1811, 
1814, 
1862, 
1862, 
1864, 
1867, 
1870, 

1879, 
1882. 


1882, 


1883, 
1884, 


1885, 
1886, 


1886, 
1887, 


1889, 
1890, 


Page. 

January  17,  military  age 194 

April  30,  military  age 194 

July  16,  marine  hospital 415 

March  2,  marine  and  navy  hos- 
pitals   415 

March  16  (sec.  11) 194 

February  26,  navy  hospitals 415 

December  10,  military  age 241 

February  13,  military  age 288 

July  14,  commencement 18 

July  4,  military  age 194 

March  2,  special  act 414 

July  8  (sec.  4766,  R.  S.),  pen- 
sion   money 416 

March     3,     commencement — 

mother    18 

July  25  : 

(Sec.  5)  double  pensions 414 

Expert  examination 348 

August  7  : 

Marriage 48,214,277 

Minor's  claim 449 

March  3,  amputation 3 

July  4  : 

(Sees.  3  and  4)  attorneys-  50 
(Sec.  4)   fee  agreements-  203,521 

March  3,  amputation — increase  4 
March  19  : 

Increase — mother 20 

Rate — mothers — rank 36 

August  4,  amputation 1 

January  29  : 

Mexican  war  pensions 22 

Remarriage — restoration 338 

Service 163,218 

March  2  (sec.  3),  desertion,  re- 
moval of  charge 17 

June  27 : 

Act  August  7,  1882,  and 

sec.  4706,  R.  S 449 

(Sec.  2),  age — disability  __  179 

Amendatory   declaration 490 

(Sec.  3),  commencement 162 

Commencement — minors.  431,  510 
(Sec.    1),    construed — 

mothers 36 

Declarations — filing 315,  420 

(Sec.  1),  dependent  parents  247 

Desertion — discharge 13 

(Sec.  2),  disability 38 


1890,  June  27 — Continued.  Page. 

Disloyalty — accrued        pen- 
sion      243 

Election — no  benefit 455 

(Sec.  1),  fee— appeal—  325,514 

Honorable    discharge 440 

Increase,  act  of  1890 451 

(Sec.   3),   marriage  and  di- 
vorce     73,488 

(Sec.  3),  minor's  pension--  448 

Mothers — rate    34 

Practice 455 

Rate— reduction—oedema-  336,  505 

Rejected   recruit 390 

Section  4702,  R.  S 450 

Section  4707,  R.  S 171 

Service 206 

Service — absence 435 

Service — Beaty's   Scouts 141 

(Sec.  2),  service — board  of 

enrollment 183 

1891,  March  3,  fee— increase 508 

1892,  July  14  : 

Aid  and  attendance 477 

Commencement — increase  -  503 

1892,  July  27,  service — Indian  wars-  177 

1893,  January  5  : 

Commencement 380 

Increase  under  act  1887 22 

1893,  December  21,  pension — vested 

right — notice    80 

1895,  March  2: 

Accrued  pension 49 

Distribution    352 

1896,  March  6  : 

Commencement 511 

'Practice 122 

1896,  March  13  : 

Death — presumption 197 

Presumption  of  death 48 

1898,  May  4,  Naval  Home 416 

1899,  March  3  : 

Construed — retroactive  laws  77 

Division  of  pension 260,  288 

Division      of      pension — re- 
payment    255 

Divorce — jurisdiction 494 

Evidence — division    of   pen- 
sion    377 

Fee — accrued   pension 50 

Naval    Home — fund 416 

Notice— evidence 523,524 

Retroactive  laws — division.  90 


Sections  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States. 


Page. 
1116.  Military  age 194 

4693.  Invalid  pension — title 19 

4693.   Service — wagon   master 285 

4695.  Rate 35 


Page. 

4696.  Rank  and  rate 19,  486 

4702.   Widows 426 

4702.   Widow's   pension 424 

4705.  Marriage  of  colored  persons.  181,  446 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


57 


Page. 

4706.  Minor's  claim 449 

4707.  Act  June  27,  1890 — dependent 

parents 171 

4707.  Dependent   parents — war   with 

Spain 247,514 

4707.  Fee— appeal 325 

4707  and  June  27,  1890.      Fee — lim- 
itation    171 

4707.  Rank — dependent  mother 18 

4707.  Rate 35 

4708.  Remarriage 338 

4713.  Commencement 384 

4713  and  4730.  Commencement  !___  176 

4715.  Election 456 

4715.  Navy  pensions 415 

4716.  Accrued    pensions 241 

4716.   Disloyalty — conscription 252 

4716.  Disloyalty — evidence 64,  124 

4716.  Disloyalty  —  evidence  —  pre- 
sumption    136 


Page. 

4716.  Duress — Line  of  duty 290 

4716.   Record — evidence 327 

4718.  Pending    claim — accrued    pen- 
sion    259 

4720.  Commencement — special  act 426 

4730   and  4713.  Mexican  war — com- 
mencement    175 

4734.   Pension  money,  withholding 80 

4745.   Pension   money — -assignment 80 

4747.  Pension  money — seizure 80 

4756.  Navy   pensions 410,  412 

4757.  Navy  pensions 410 

4766.   Guardians 352 

4766.'  Payment  of  pension 412,  416 

4766.   Pension  fund — payment 353 

4783.  Guardians 353 

4786.   Fee  agreements 203 

4813.  Navy  pensions 410 

5486.  Guardians ^ 353 


State  Statutes. 


Page. 
California   Laws    (March   26,   1895), 
sees.  55,  57,  70,  75,  77,  78,  mar- 
riage          144 

Georgia  Code  (1882),  sees.  3594  and 

3828— jurisdiction    229 

Indiana  Revised  Statutes  : 

Sec.  1051,  divorce — decree 227 

Sec.  1055,  summons — service 228 

Sec.  1056,  nonresident — service-       228 
Iowa  Code : 

(1873)     sees.     2223    and     2231, 

marriage 74 

(1897)     sees.    3175    and    3182, 

marriage 74 

Maryland  Code  : 

(1777)  ch.  12,  sec.  11,  marriage 

of  colored  persons 279 

(1777)  ch.  62,  sec.  13,  marriage 

of  colored  persons 280 

(February  6,  1879)    legitimacy — 
colored  persons 281 


Page. 
Massachusetts  : 

(May  29,  1895)  marriage 116 

(June  5,  1896)  marriage 116 

Michigan,    Howard    on    Stats.,    sec. 

6295,  wife's  right  to  property 297 

Missouri,  Code  of  Civil  Procedure, 
sees.  2009,  2010,  2013,  2014,  in- 
terlocutory decree 500 

New  York,   sec.   6,   ch.   8,   art.    1,   p. 

2332,  marriage 214 

Oregon,  Code  of  1872,  Title- VII,  par. 

766,  evidence — marriage 428 

Virginia  Code  : 

(February    27,    1866)    marriage 

of  colored  persons 167 

(1873)  pp.  843  and  844,  ch.  105, 
sec.  7,  marriage 445 


PENSION  DECISIONS— VOLUME  12. 


TABLE  OF  CASES  CITED. 


Vnge. 
A. 

Adams,  Elizabetn  (12  P.  D.,  312)  ___  349 
Adams,  The  State  v.   (65  N.  C,  537)        288 

American  Decisions  (88,  p.  500) 12 

American  and  Engiisli  Encyclopedia 

(1,  p.   28) 39 

American  Criminal  Law  (1,  sec.  163)  150 
American  and  English  Encyclopedia 

of  Law   (1,  p.  417) 118 

American  and   English  Encyclopedia 

of  Law   (3,  p.  600) 484 

American  and  English  Encyclopedia 

of  Law,  2d  ed.    (9,  767,  775,  and 

note)     12,  56,  58,  365 

American  and  English  Encyclopedia 

of  Law   (14,  p.  518) 438 

American  and  English  Encyclopedia 

of  Law,  2d  ed.   (15,  p.  875,  f.  and 

note  1,  p.  146) 339 

American    Cyclopedia    of    Law     (17, 

note  2,  p.  396) 133 

American    Life    Insurance   Company, 

Hancock  v.    (62  Mo.,  26) _'_        112 

Anderson,  Ellen  (6  P.  D.,  197) 147 

Anderson,    Margaret    J.     (4    P.    D., 

67)    137,278 

Andrews  r.  Page  (3  Heisk.,  667) ___  469 
Archambault,  Syprian  (6  P.  D..  240)  81 

Atherton   v.   Atherton    (82   Hun,   n., 

179)    304 

Attorney-General  (3  P.  D.,  430) 407 

Attorney-General    (20  Op.,  322) 389 

B. 

Bahb,   Isaac   W.,   alias  John  Dunlap 

(8  P.  D.,  59) 51 

Bachman,  Batchelor  E.  (7  P.  D.,  249)  478 
Bainbridge,  United  States  v.   (1  Ma- 
son, 81)   81 

Baker,  Frank  M.,  People  of  the  State 

of  New  York  v.  (76  N.  Y.,  78) 305 

Baltzer,  George  (10  P.  D.,  37) 17 

Banks,  Griffin  v.  (24  How.,  215) 311 

Barker,  Mary  P.  (8  P.  D.,  48) 517 

Barleyoung,  John  (7  P.  D.,  453) 186 

Barnes  et  al..  Long  v.  (87  N.  C,  329)  289 


Page. 
Beates  and  Another,  Miller  et  al.  v. 

(3  Serg.  &  R.,  Pa.,  490) 280 

Beatrie,     Schmisseur     r.     (147     111., 

210)    183,328 

Beckwith,  Fisher  v.  (30  Wis.,  55) __  362 
Beers,  Edmund  O.  (7  P.  I).,  113) _  215,  244 

Beller  r.  Beller  (50  Mich.,  51) 12 

Bcrnsteine,  Adolph  (7  P.  D.,  229)  __  408 
Berry,   Margaret  A.    (7   P.   D.,  o.   s., 

164)    460 

Beswick  (25  How.,  Pr.,  151) 81 

Bice,  William  (9  P.  D.,  21) 525 

Binghampton  Bridge  Case    (3  Wall., 

51)    403 

Bishop  V.  Bishop  (30  Pa.  St.,  412)  __  416 
Bishop    on     Marriage    and     Divorce 

(pars.   169,  951) 11,  350 

Blackburn    v.    Crawfords    (3    Wall., 

175)    469 

Blake,  Daniel  (3  P.  D.,  27) 265 

Blasini  et  al.    v.   The   Succession  of 

Blasini  (30  La.  An.,  1368) 384 

Boardm'an,  Henry  S.  (3  P.  D.,  44) __  55 

Bonner,  William  (1  P.  D.,  346) 265 

Borden  v.  Fitch  (15  John.,  ch.,  141)  _  306 
Bordine,   Benj.   M.    (13   P.   D.,  o.   s., 

335) 264 

Bower,  Senser  v.  (1  P.  and  W.,  450)  _  282 
Bowers,  Brower  v.   (1  Abb.  Ct.  App., 

214)    309 

Bragunier,  Elizabeth   (9  P.  D.,  o.  s., 

250)    146 

Bradley  v.  Bradley  (4  Whar.,  173)__  282 

Briggs,    Davie    v.    (97  U.    S.,    628)  _  112, 

209,  282 

Brooks,  William  J.  (2  P.  D.,  269) ___  264 

Brown  v.  Brown  (66  Maine,  316) ___  362 
Brown,  Minerva  (11  P.  D.,  266)  __  297,421 
Browne   on    Domestic    Relations    (p. 

12) 484 

Brownlee,  Wilson  v.  (24  Ark.,  586) _  102 
Brower  v.  Bowers   (1  Abb.  Ct.  App., 

214)    309 

Bruner,  Bernard   (3  P.  D.,  228) 464 

Buchanan,  Sarah   (10  P.  D.,  423)  _   314,335 

Buckley,  Mary  C.  (8  P.  D.,  195) 297 

Bundy,  James  (1  P.  D.,  356) 264 


58 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


59 


Page. 

BurgOyne,  Annie  B.  (12  P.  D.,  182)  _  421 
Burns,    Patrick    II.    (11    V.    D.,    332, 

362)     382,392,450 

Burr  V.  Sim  (4  Whar.,  149) 282 

Burton,  Jennette  (9  P.  D.,  31) 297, 

308,  335,  350 

Butler,  Jeremiali  (7  P.  D.,  214) 186 

C. 

Caldwell,  James  (9  P.  D.,  486) 325 

Calvert,  Carpenter  v.  (83  111.,  62)  __  324 
Camel,  McCartee  v.   (1  Barb.,  N.  Y., 

ch.  455)     112 

Campbell,  Innis  v.   (1  Rawl.,  372) __  282 

Carley,  Timothy  L.   (7  P.  D.,  12)___  17 

Carpenter  v.  Calvert  (83  111.,  62)___  324 
Carroll    v.    Carroll    (16    How.,    275- 

287)    483 

Cartwright   et   al.   v.   McGown    (121 

111.,    388) 326,482 

Caton,  James  (6  P.  D.,  159) 244 

Caujolle  V.  Ferrie  (23  N.  Y.,  90)___  38 
Chapman  v.  Cooper   (5  Rich.,  S.  C, 

452)    285 

Chase,  Ransom  J.  (11  P.  D.,  483)  __  265 
Cherokee  Nation  v.  Georgia   (5  Pet., 

1)    ^_  519 

Claise,  John  Bois,  widow  of  (1  P.  D., 

o.  s.,  13) 86 

Clark,  Cassandra  F.  (8  P.  D.,  235)__  476 
Clark  V.    Cox  (32  Mich.,  204,  211, 

212) 339 

Claw,  Jackson  v.   (18  Johns.,  346)  __  37 

Cleveland,  Hunt  v.  (6  Pa.  C.  C,  592)  _  301 

Coburn,  Mary   (11   P.   D.,  43) 297 

Code  of  Tennessee   (sec.  3293) 469 

Cohen   v.   The   State   of  Virginia    (6 

Wheat.,  264-399) 483 

Colby,  Rowland  A.   (7  P.  D.,  ^) 213 

Colderan,  William  S.  (4  P.  D.,  418 )_  87 

Colgln,  Susan   (5  P.  D.,  127) 82 

Collins,   Hiram    (12  P.  D.,  361) 473 

Commissioner  of  Pensions  (11  P.  D., 

351)    3 

Commissioner  of  Pensions,  by  Secre- 
tary Bussey   (4  P.  D.,  225) 82 

Comstock,  Harriet  (10  P.  D.,  220)  __  137 

Conaty,  Thomas  G.  (6  P.  D.,  238) __  250 

Conklin,  Philip  J.  (10  P.  D.,  368)  __  366 
Conover  v.  Conover  (11  P.  D.,  524)  _  44,  157 

Cook,  Cassilly  C.   (12  P.  D.,  188) __  254 

Cook,  Nathaniel  (5  L.  B.  P.,  118) __  264 
Coolidge,  United  States  v.  (1  Wheat., 

415)    150 

Cooper  V.  Cooper  (12  P.  D.,  163) _  238,376 

Cooper  V.  Cooper  (17  Mich.,  £05)—  12 
Cooper,  Chapman  v.   (5  Rich.,  S.  C, 

452)    285 

Cooper,  Warwick  r.    (5  Sneed,  659)_  469 

Cotton,  Walton  v.   (19  How.,  355)  __  32 

Cowen,  Franklin  S.  (7  P.  D.,  374)  __  187 
Cox,   Clark   v.    (32   Mich.,    204,    211, 

212)    .339 

Crawfords,  Blackburn  v.  (3  Wallace, 

175)    469 


Crider,  Malinda  L.   (7  P.  D.,  462__. 

Croft,  Sarah  (1  P.  D.,  279) 

Croft,  Simon  v.   (182  U.  S.,  427)  __. 
Cropsey  r.  McKinney  (30  Barb.,  47). 

Cullen,  James   (6  P.  D.,  72) 

Cummings,    William    H.     (1    P.    D. 
351)    


Page. 
284 
146 
158 
309 
82 

146 


Darling,  Elizabeth  (10  P.  D.,  244)  __  509 

Darrow  v.  Harrow  (150  Mass.,  262) _  447 

Davie  v.  Briggs   (97  U.  S.,  628) 112, 

209,  284 

Davis  V.  Davis  (2  Del.  N.  Y.,  549)  __  305 
Davis  V.  Davis  (10  P.  D.,  403,  409 )_  31,  222 
Davis,  Edwards  v.   (16  Johns,  N.  Y., 

281)    363 

Davis,  Fox  v.   (113  Mass.,  255) 447 

Davis,  Margaret  E.  (10  P.  D.,  403) _  6 

Davis,  William  N.    (7  P.  D.,  333)  __  504 

Dawson  v.  Dawson  (12  Iowa,  512)  _  363 
Deflfenbaugh,  Anthony  W.    (5  P.  D., 

246)    56 

Dies,  John   (457  L.  B.,  262) 224 

Dixon    V.     The    People     (18    Mich., 

84)    285,349 

Dodge,    Miller   v.    (28    N.    Y.    Misc., 

238)    341 

Dolan,  Mary  E.  (11  P.  D.,  62) 445 

Dorlas,  Nancy  J.   (5  P.  D.,  230) 279 

Douglas,   George  W.,   minors  of    (11 

P.    D.,    448) 28 

Drake,  George  W.  (9  P.  D.,  273) ___  227 
Dunlap,  Robert  G.,  alias  Durdass  (5 

P.  D.,  52) 43 

Durkee,  James  J.    (8  P.  D.,  152) 17 

Dyer,  David  H.   (9  P.  D.,  87) 466,503 


Edgerly  v.  Edgerly  (112  Mass.,  53 )_  447 
Edwards  i\  Davis  (16  Johns.  N.  Y., 

28)    363 

Eibel,  Kate   (7  P.  D.,  179) 82 

Eisenlohr,  O'Gara  v.  (38  N.  Y.,  296) _  38 

Ellason,  Mary   (3  P.  D.,  100) 147 

Ellis,  Alphouso  W.  (11  P.  D.,  93)  _^  56 
Ellis,  Eliza  J.    (12  P.  D.,  159)___  450,477 

Ellis  V.  Ellis   (11  P.  D.,  288) 44, 

157,    238,    263,336 
Estell     t\     Rogers     (1     Bush.     Ky., 

62) 440,449 

Ewing,  Richard   (8  P.  D.,  44) 166 

F. 

Fairbanks  v.  Metcalf  (8  Mass.,  230)  _  362 

Feilen,   People  v.    (58  Cal.,   218)  ___  285 

Fenton  v.  Reed   (4  Johns.,  51) 37 

Ferrie,  Caujolle  r.  (23  N.  Y.,  90) __  38 
Filones,  Christopher,  Mary  A.  Filones 

V.    (12   P.   D.,   237) 373 

Filones,     Mary    A.,     v.     Christopher 

Filones   (12  P.  D.,  237) 373 

Finley,  William    (11  P.  D.,  410) ___  166 

Fisher  v.  Beckwith  (30  Wis.,  55)—  362 


60 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


Page. 
Fitch,     Borden     r.     (15    John.    Ch., 

141)    , 306 

Fleagle  v.  Fleagle  (12  P.  D.,  57)__-       365 
Fleck,  George  W.  (7  P.  D.,  343)  __  277,  504 
Fordham,  Charles  F.,  v.  Gouverneur 
Village   (vol.  5,  app.  div.,  565,  su- 
preme court  of  New  York) 39 

Fox  V.  Davis  (113  Mass.,  255) 447 

Frisbie  v.  United  States   (157  U.  S., 

166)    32,111 

Fuller,  Sallie  A.   (10  P.  D.,  238) ___        137 


G. 


Gaines    v.    New    Orleans    (6    Wall., 

642)    350 

Gaines,  Patterson  v.   (6  How.,  550) _  41 
Gall  V.  Gall  (114  N.  Y.,  109)  _   310,  341,  516 

Gates  V.  Houston,    (3  Tex.,  433) ___  285 
George,  Harrison  B.  (decided  Jan.  6, 

1898,   L.  B.   263,  p.  416) 215 

Georgia,     Cherokee     Nation     v.      (5 

Pet.,   1)    519 

Georgia,  Worcester  v.   (5  Pet.,  515) _  519 
Germain,     Louise     C.      (11     P.     D., 

66)    279,308,351 

Gilbert,  Belle  (7  P.  D.,  239) 43 

Gilbert,  Margaret  (8  P.  D.,  249) 514 

Gillespie,  Alexander  (2  P.  D.,  16) __  433 

Giulbeau,  Younge  v.   (3  Wall.,  641 )_  362 

Gleason  v.  Gleason   (4  Wis.,  64) 416 

Gordon  v.  Gordon  (141  111.,  160) ___  328 

Gore,  Mills  v.    (20  Pick.,  28) 362 

Gouverneur  Village,  Chas.  F.  Ford- 
ham  V.  (vol.  5,  app.  div.,  565,  su- 
preme court  of  New  York) 39 

Graham,  Strader  v.   (10  How.  U.  S., 

82)    483 

Graves  v.  Graves  (108  Mass.,  314)  _  447 
Greenleaf  on  Evidence   (1,  pars.  41, 

545)    112,484 

Greenleaf    on    Evidence    (sees.    101, 

108)    308 

Griffin  v.  Banks  (24  How.,  215) 311 

Guy,  William  M.  (7  P.  D.,  484) 409 


H. 


Hackley  v.   Headley    (4  Mich.,  569- 

574)    58 

Hadlock  v.  Hadlock  (22  III.,  388) __  362 
Halbrook  v.  State  (34  Ark.,  511)___  104 
Halfhill,     Elizabeth     J.     (8     P.     D., 

467)    82 

Hall,    United    States   v.    (98    U.    S., 

343)    148 

Hamilton,  Zenas   (3  P.  D,,  3)___ 433 

Hancock  t\   American   Life  Ins.   Co. 

(62   Mo.,    26) 112 

Hankinson,  Obediah  P.  (7  P.  D.,  227, 

and  9  P.  D.,  292) 409 

Hardenl^erger    r.    Hardenberger    (14 

Cal.,    054) 416 

Harding,  James  (2  P.  D.,  232) 433 

Harnden,   Margarette   E.    (12   P.   D., 

278)    - __       350 


Page. 

Harrington,  Harvey  (12  P.  D.,  109)-  442 

Haskins,  Edwin   (8  P.  D.,  40) 43 

Hauenstein,  Daniel  (7  P.  D.,  256) __  526 

Hautz  V.  Sealey   (6  Blnn.,  405) 301 

Hawkins,  Lettie   (8  P.  D.,  22) 160 

Hawkins,  Sarah  J.   (10  P.  D.,  370) _  465 

Hayden,  Sarah  C.    (8  P.  D.,  364) ___  301 

Hayes,  James  A.   (7  P.  D.,  190) 362 

Ilayford,  Ira  W.    (9  P.  D.,  307) 219 

Headley,  Hackley  r.    (4  Mich.,  569- 

574)    58 

Height,   James,   minor   of    (8   P.    D., 

469)    513 

Hetherington,  Aura  (10  P.  D.,  355)  _  82,  138 

Hicks,  James  L.  (8  P.  D.,  518) 390 

Hill,  George  W.   (7  P.  D.,  235-236) _  277, 

409,  503 

Hill,  John  J.  (7  P.  D.,  142) ^_  215,244 

Hitner's  appeal    (54  Pa.,   110) 57 

Hodgman,  Eliza   (11  P.  D.,  18) 32 

Hoepfner,  Louisa  S.  (9  P.  D.,497)_  137,279 

Hoffman  v.  Hoffman  (46  N.  Y.,  30)  _  306 

Holmes  v.  Holmes  (6  La.,  463) 384 

Holmes  et  al.  v.  Johnson  (42  Pa.  St., 

159)    282 

Ilolyoke    Co.    v.    Lyman    (15    Wall., 

500) 403 

Hooker,  America   (8  P.  D.,  210) __  297,421 

Houston,  Gates  v.   (3  Tex.,  433) 285 

Houston  V.  Moore   (5  Wheat.,  37)—  390 

Houston,  Yates  v.    (3  Tex.,  433) ___  315 
Howard,   Lafayette  G.,   minor  of    (8 

P.   D.,  230) 25 

Hudson,  United  States  v.  (7  Cranch, 

32)    150 

Hull  V.  Rawls   (27  Miss.,  471) 285 

Hunt    r.    Cleveland     (6    Pa.    C.    C, 

592)    301 

HutchinsiJ.  Kimmel  (31   Mich.,  126)  _  483 

Hynes,  Tljomas  (5  P.  D.,  52) 43 


Ingersoll    v.    Ingersoll    (49    Pa.    St., 

249)    12,507 

Innis  v.  Campbell  (1  Rawl.,  372)  ___       282 
In   i-e   Culver's   estate    (7   Kulp   Pa., 

219) 302 

In  re  Grimley   (137  U.   S.,  152) 502 

In  re  House  (40  St.  Rep.  N.  Y.,  286) _       305 
Instructions  to  Commissioner  of  Pen- 
sions  (7  P.  D.,  240) 186 

Instructions  to  Commissioner  of  Pen- 
Pensions    (11   P.   D.,   12) 525 


.Jackson  v.  Claw  (18  Johns.,  346)__  37 
Jackson    v.    Jackson    (1    John.    Ch., 

425)    306 

Jackson,  Perry,  widow  of   (6  P.  D., 

230)    87 

Jackson   v.    Winne    (7   Wend.    N.   Y., 

47)    438 

Jewell  V.  Jewell  (1  How.,  219) 308 

John  V.  Johnson   (1  Cold.,  630) 469 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


61 


Page. 

Johnson,  John  v.   (1  Cold.,  630) 469 

Johnson  v.  Johnson's  administrators 

(30  Mo.,  72-77  Am.  Dec,  298)—  519 
Johnson,    Holmes   et   al.   v.    (42   Pa. 

St.,  159) 282 

Johnson  v.  Johnson  (114  111.,  611)—  285 
Johnson,    United   States    i;.    (124   U. 

S.,   253)    277,504 

Johnson,  William   (9  P.  D.,  452)  ___  367 

Johnson,  William  R.  (4  P.  D.,  167)  _  433 
Johnson's  administrators,  Johnson  v. 

(30  Mo.,  72-77  Am.  Dec,  298)  ___  519 

Jones,  Catharine   (7  L.  B.  P.,  284)  _  86 

Jones,   Ruth    (3   P.    D.,   279) 133 

Jones  17.  Zoller   (29  Hun,  551) 310 


K. 


Kelly's  heirs  v.   McGuire  et  al.    (15 

Ark.,   605)    102 

Kent   (2,  p.   146) 339 

Kent,  Fredricka   (10  P.  D.,  211)  ___  315 

Kerr  r.  Kerr   (41  N.  Y.,  272) 305 

Kimball,  John  H.    (11  P.  D.,  124)  __  15 

Kimmel,  Hutchins  v.  (31  Mich.,  126)  483 

Kinnier  v.  Kinnier  (45  N.  Y.,  535) _  306 
Kirby,  James  A.   (10  Fee  P.  L.  Bk., 

98)    241 

K.   of  P.,  Wiggin  v.    (31   Fed.   Rep., 

125)    165 

Koch,    United    States    v.     (21    Fed. 

Rep.,  873)    32 

^' 

Laughlln,  John   (9  P.  D.,  466) 351 

Laws,    Panter,    heirs    of    (2    P.    D., 

o.    s.,    291) 184 

Lessor,  George  (8  P.  D.,  114) 81 

Lockhart  v.  White  (18  Tex.,  102)  __  350 
Loeb,    Nathan,    ^lias    Nathan    Lyons 

(11  P.  D.,  286) 138 

Long   V.    Barnes    et    al.    (87    N.    C, 

329)    289 

Longee,  Augustus  H.  (7  P.  D.,  586 )_  15,47 

Loughry  v.  Loughry  (11  P.  D.,  523)  _  44, 

157,  376 

Loughry,  Loughry  v.  (11  P.  D.,523)_  44, 

157,  376 

Lowe,  White  v.  1  Redf.,  376) 311 

Lumley,     Rice     v.      (10     Ohio     St., 

155)    314,349 

Lyman,    Holyoke   Co.    v.    (15    Wall., 

500)    403 


M. 


McCartee  v.  Camel  (1  Barb.  N.  Y., 

ch.  455)   112 

McCollum,    Mary   B.    (6    P.    D.,    93)       330, 

483,  484 

McGhee,  Morgan  v.  (5  Hemph.  Tenn., 

14)    520 

McGiffert  v.  McGiflfert   (31  Barb.   N. 

Y,  69)    300 


Page. 
McGown,   Cartwright  et  al.  v.    (121 

111.,   388) _   326,482 

McGuire  et  al.,  Kelly's  heirs   v.    (15 

Ark.,   605) 102 

Mcintosh,     Eppenetus     (10     P.     D., 

172)    244 

McKinney,  Cropsey  v.  (30  Barb,  47 >  309 
McMahon,  Jane    (L.   B.,  No.   178,  p. 

151)    183 

McReynolds  v.  The  State  of  Tennes- 
see  (5  Cold.,  20) 514 

Manley,  Randolph  M.  (5  P.  D.,  295) _       385, 

503,  525 
Marker  v.  Marker  (11  N.  J.  L.,  257)  12 

Markwood,    Robert  (11    P.  D.,  380)__      223, 

375,  526 
Martin,  Alexander   (4  P.   D.,  378) __       296 

Martin  v.  Mott    (12  Wheat.,  19) 289 

Martin  v.  Waddell   (6  Pet,  367) 403 

Mayhugh,     Rosenthal    v.     (33     Ohio 

St.,    165) 314,349 

Meeker,  John  H.   (10  P.  D.,  182) 351 

Meister  v.  Moore   (96  U.  S.,  76) 469, 

483,  519 
Melton,  State  v.   (120  N.  C,  591 )__       289 

Melvin,  Daniel  V.   (8  P.  D.,  89) 146 

Merritt,  Maria  (10  P.  D.,  157) ___  160,448 
Metcalf,     Fairbanks.   i\     (8     Mass., 

230)    362 

Millard  v.  Millard  (12  P.  D.,  262)  __  336 
Miller   et   al   v.   Beates   and   another 

(3  Serg.  &  R.,Pa.,  490) 280 

Miller    v.    Dodge    (28    N.    Y.,    Misc, 

238)    341 

Miller,  James  W.  (8  P.  D.,  416) 326 

Mills  V.  Gore   (20  Pick.,  28) 362 

Mills  V.  St.  Clair  Co.  (8  How.,  581)_  403 
Mofleatt  V.  Moffatt  (5  Cal.,  281)___  416 
Monthony,    Stephen    F.    (11    P.    D., 

193)    82,138 

Moore,  Edward  W.   (9  P.  D.,  55)___  4 

Moore,  Houston  v.  (5  Wheat.,  37) __  390 
Moore,  Meister  v.   (96  U.  S.,  76)___      469, 

483,519 
Moore  v.  Moore   (102  Tenn.,  148) __       469 

Moore,  William  (12  P.  D.,  87) 92 

Moors  V.  Moors   (121  Mass.,  232) 447 

Morgan  v.  McGhee  (5  Hemph.  Tenn., 

14) 520 

Morris,  Elwood    (9  P.  D.,  353) 367 

Morris,  Walter  (9  P.  D.,  462) 525 

Mott,  Martin  v.  (12  Wheat.,  19)  ___       389 

Munsell,  Mary  (9  P.  D.,  30) 499 

Myers,  Felix  (11  P.  D.,  315) 56 


N. 


Napier,  Edward  E.  (11  P.  D.,  240).  82, 138 

Nash,  De  Witt  C.  (10  P.  D.,  141)  __  82 

Neff,  Pennoyer  v.  (95  U.  S.,  722) ___  483 
New    Orleans,    Gaines    v.    (6    Wall., 

642) 350 

Noble,  Charles  H.  (6  P.  D.,  268)  ___  264 
North,  United  States  v.    (112  U.  S., 

510)    __  385 


62 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


.  Page. 

Norton,  John   (9  P.  D.,  382) 253. 

326,  379,  392,  450 
Notman,  Annie  (11  P.  D.,  212) 350 


O. 


O'Brien,  Nora  (12  P,  D.,  32) 308,351 

O'Gara  v.  Eisenlohr  (38  N.  Y.,  296)  _  38 

Oliver  v.  Piatt  (3  Howard,  333) 514 

Opinions  in  submitted  cases  (p.  265)  44 

Ordway,  Albert  (4  P.  D.,  90) 56 

Orr,  Mary  C.  (10  P.  D.,  p.  348) 439 

Ott,  Cattierlne  (4  P.  D.,  47) 146 


Pacific,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  Sensendefer  i'. 

(19  Fed.  Rep.,  68) 285 

Page,  Andrews  v.  (3  Heisli.,  667) 469 

Palmer,  Ellen  A.   (7  P.  D.,  363) 136 

Palmer,  Esther  A.  (11  P.  D.,  320) __  297, 

350,  420 

Parker,  William  H.   (8  P.  D.,  198)  __  478 

Patterson,  Francis  A.   (12  P.  D.,  29)  111 

Patterson  v.  Gaines  (6  How.,  550)  _  519 
Payne,  Wilkinson  v.    (4  Term.  Rep., 

468)    469 

Pearson,  Ellen  (5  P.  D.,  258) 387 

Pennoyer  v.  Neff  (95  U.  S.,  722) ___  483 

People,  Dixon  v.   (18  Mich.,  84) 285 

People  V.  Feilen  (58  Cal.,  218) 285 

People  of  the  State  of  New  York  v. 

Frank  M.  Baker  (76  N.  Y.,  78)___  305 

Pepper,  Helen  L.   (9  P.  D.,  500) 278 

Peterson,  Carrie  (11  P.  D.,  139)__  183,297 
Phelan  v.  Phelan   (35  111.  App.,  511, 

and  135   111.,  445) 410 

Phillips  on  Evidence  (vol.  2,  p.  286)  469 

Piatt,  Oliver  v.   (3  Howard,  333)  ___  514 

Pierce,  Oliver  P.   (7  P.  D.,  91) 56 

Poland,  Nicholas,  widow  of  (8  P.  D., 

266)    273 

Port  V.  Port  (70  111.,  484) 328 

Potter's  Dwarris   (p.  203) 219 

Powell  V.  Powell  (29  Vt.,  148) 416 

Pratt  V.  Pratt  (157  Mass.,  503) 447 

Prescott,  Charles  R.,  mother  of   (12 

P.  D.,  o.  s.,  477) 131 

Preston,  Hilliard  (8  P.  D.,  374) 265 


R. 


Rainey,  James  II.  (8  P.  D,,  77) 15 

Rankin,  Lewis  (11  P.  D.,  373) 253, 

379,  450 
Ransom,  Albert  K.  (5  P.  D.,  184)  __  277 
Rappleye,  Milton  M.  (10  P.  D.,  464)  243 
Ratcliff,  Scott's  Lessee  v.   (5  Peters, 

81)    105 

Rathton,  Nancy  (9  P.  D.,  162) 277, 

467,  5Q4 
Rawls,  Hull  V.  (27  Miss.,  471 )_____  285 
Rector,  Smith  v.  (10  Humph.,  57)  __  469 
Redding,  Daniel  M.  (2  P.  D.,  167) __       264 

Reed,  Fenton  v.   (4  Johns.,  51) 37 

Rice  V,  Lumley  (10  Ohio  St.,  596)-  314,  349 


Page. 

Richards  v.   Richards  (11  P.  D.,  90)  _    8, 

45,  58,  263,  336 

Riddle,  Lewis  (11  P.  D.,  252) 15 

Riddle,  Mary   (10  P.  D.,  441) 160,448 

Ridgeway,  Basil  T.   (9  P.  D.,  300)  __       409 

Riley   U  Benedict,  410) 81 

Roach,  Nannie  (7  P.  D.,  80) _  160,440,448 
Robinson,  John  S.  (11  P.  D.,  390)  _  277,504 
Rogers,     Estell     v.     (1     Bush.     Ky., 

62)    440,449 

Rogers  v.  Lessees  of  Park  et  al.    (4 

Humph.,    480) 470 

Rose  V.  Rose   (50  Mich.,  92) 12 

Rosenthal  v.  Mayhugh   (33  Ohio  St., 

155)    314,349 

Rothery,     Henry     N.      (11     P.     D., 

255)    109,336 

Rothery   v.    Rothery    (11    P.   D.,    77, 

377)    8,58,263,336,373,507 

Ryan,  Philip  E.   (9  P.  D.,  289) 409 


Samuels,    F.    M.,    alias   Chas.    Smith 

(12  P.  D.,  80) 138 

Schmidlin,  Elizabeth  (6  P.  D.,  200)  _  137 
Schmisseur     v.     Beatrie     (147     111., 

210)    183,328 

Schouler's  Domestic  Relations  (5  ed., 

par.    38) 416 

Schouler's  Domestic  Relations  (5  ed., 

320-339    12 

Schouler's  Domestic   Relations    (par. 

264  et  seq.) 363 

Schouler's  Domestic  Relations  (sees. 

254-267a)    133 

Scott's  Lessee  v.  Ratcliff   (5  Peters, 

81)    105 

Sealey,  Hautz  v.   (6  Birin.,  405) 301 

Sensendefer  v.  Pacific,  etc.,  Ins.  Co. 

(19  Fed.  Rep.,  68) 285 

Senser  r.  Bower  (1  P.  &  W.,  Pa.,  450)  282 
Server,  Ann  Eliza  (7  P.  D.,  468 )_   137,280 

Sharp  V.  Johnson   (22  Ark.,  79) 103 

Sharpe,  Marie  (8  P.  D.,  175) 284 

Sheets,  Amy  P.   (3  P.  D.,  293) 279 

Sim,  Burr  v.   (4  Whar.,  149) 282 

Simon  v.  Croft   (182  U.  S.,  427) 158 

Smith  V.  Rector  (10  Humph.,  57)___  469 
Sparhawk   v.   Sparhawk    (114  Mass'., 

355,  and  116  Mass.,  315) 447 

Spencer,  John    (6  P.  D.,  167,  and  7 

P.  D.,  152) 166 

State  Bank  of  North  Carolina,  United 

States  r.   (6  Peters,  36) 164 

State,  Halbrook  v.   (34  Ark.,  511)  —  104 

State  V.  Melton  (120  N.  C,  591)  ___  289 

State,  Swartz  v.   (13  Ohio  C.  C,  62)  315 

State  V.  Whitford  (86  N.  C,  636)  __  289 

St.  Clair  Co.,  Mills  v.  (8  How.,  581)  403 
Stewart    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(par.    251) 11 

Stewart    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(par.    256) 56,58 

Stewart    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(par.    180) 339 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


63 


Page. 
Stewart    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(par.    256) 365 

Stewart    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(par.    215) 483 

Stewart    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(sec.    94) 384 

Stewart    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(sec.    83) 437 

Stewart    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(sec.    97) 506 

Stine,  Jasper  M.  (9  P.  D.,  488) ___  81,138 
Stocljer,  Mary  J.  (9  P.  D.,  506):.___  335 
Stoffer  V.  Stoffer  (50  Mich.,  491)__  56,365 

Stone  V.  Stone  (32  Con.,  142) 363 

Story  on  Conflict  of  Laws  (pars.  80, 

81,    113) 484 

Story  on  Conflict  of  Laws  (sees.  105, 

113) 519 

Story    on    the    Constitution    of    the 

United  States  (sec.  1212) 390 

Strode  v.  Strode  (3  Bush.,  227) 293 

Strong   (86  Hun  N.  Y.,  390) 305 

Strader  v.  Graham  (10  How.,  V.  S., 

82) 483 

Striggon,  Elizabeth  (8  P.  D.,  12)___  442 
Sullivan,  Pythia  Ann  (7  P.  D.,  512) _  278 
Sullivan,  Sarah  Ann — widow   (10  P. 

D.,  55) 253,450 

Sutherland    on    Stat.     Constr.     (pp. 

219,  220,  288,  314) 42,219 

Sutherland    on    Stat.    Constr.    (sees. 

21,  239,  240) 324,521 

Swartz  V.  State  (13  Oliio  C.  C,  62)  _       315 

T. 

Taylor  v.  Taylor  (25  Misc.,  566)—  311 
Teller,  United  States  v.    (107  U.  S., 

6468) 32 

The  State  v.  Adams  (65  N.  C,  537)_  288 
The  Succession  of  Blasini,  Blasini  et 

al.  V.  (30  La.  An.,  1368) 384 

The  People,  Dixon  v.  (18  Mich.,  84 )_  349 
The  Louisiana  R.  R.  Co.,  The  Rich- 
mond, etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  V.  (13  How., 

71) 403 

The  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  R.  Co.  v.  The 

Louisiana  R.  R.  Co.  (13  How.,  71)  _  403 
The  State  of  Tennessee,  McReynolds 

V.    (5  Cold.,  20) 214 

The  State  of  Virginia,  Cohen  v.    (6 

Wheat.,    264-399) 483 

Thomas,  Margaret  L.  (9  P.  D.,  139) _  327 

Tobin,  Ann   (6  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  362) 181 

Teller,  William  (vol.  10,  p.  75) 518 

Treatise     on     Practice     of     Pension 

Bureau   (p.   10,  par.  3) 56 

Trout,  .Tohn  R.   (11  P.  D.,  435)—   409,504 

Tuten,  Rhoda  E.   (12  P.  D.,  83) 141 

Tyler,  Daniel  B.  (12  P.  D.,  385) 503 

U. 

United  States  i\  Bainbridge  (1  Ma- 
son, 81) 81 

United  States  v.  Coolidge  (1  Wheat., 

415) 150 


Page. 
United  States,  Frisbie  v.   (157  U.  S., 

166) 32,  111 

United    States    v.    Hall    (98    U.    S., 

343) 148 

United  States  v.  Hudson   (7  Cranch, 

32) 150 

United  States  v.  Johnson  (124  U.  S., 

253) 277,504 

United  States  v.  Koch  (21  Fed.  Rep., 

873) 32 

United   States  v.  North    (112  U.   S., 

510) 385 

United  States  v.  State  Banlc  of  North 

Carolina   (6  Peters,  36) 164 

United   States  v.   Teller    (107  U.   S., 

6468) 32 

V. 

Valleau  v.  Valleau  (6  Paige,  207)—  310 
Van  Houten  v.  Van  Houten    (12  P. 

D.,  157) 263 

Van  Ottendorfer,  Peter  N.  F.    (3  P. 

D.,    341) 215 

Veach,  William  H.  (12  P.  D.,  273)  _  467,504 
Vischer  v.  Vischer   (12  Barb.  N.  Y., 

640) 305 


TV. 


Waddell,  Martin  v.   (16  Pet.;  367)—  403 

Wales  V.  Wales   (119  Mass.,  89) 447 

Walker,  Mary  E.   (7  P.  D.,  197) 82 

Wall  V.  Williamson  (8  Ala.,  48;    11 

Ala.,    839) 520 

Walton  V.  Cotton  (19  How.,  355)—  32 

Warwicli  v.  Cooper  (5  Sneed,  659)--  469 

Warburton,  Mary  A.   (7  P.  D.,  49)—  278 

Watson,  Martha  (7  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  212)_  86 

Welch,  George  (3  P.  D.,  121) 244 

Wharton,  Law  of  Evidence    (1,  par. 

507) 10 

Wharton,  Law  on  Evidence  (2,  sees. 

253,   254,   672) 308 

Wheeler,  Bessie  C.   (9  P.  D.,  155)—  82 

Whitaker,  William  (3  P.  D.,  68) 56 

White,  Lockhart  v.   (18  Tex.,  102)—  350 

White  V.  Lowe  (1  Redf.,  376) 311 

Whitford,  State  v.  (86  N.  C,  636)—  289 
Wiggin  V.   K.   of  P.    (31   Fed.    Rep., 

125) 165 

Wilkinson   v.   Payne    (4   Term   Rep., 

468) , 469 

Williams,  Francis  M.  (3  P.  D.,  401)  _  296 

Williams,  John  S.   (10  P.  D.,  169)  __  351 

Williams,  Joseph  C.   (7  P.  D.,  218)  _  81 

Williams,  Stephen  F.  (7  P.  D.,  507) _  131 

Williams,  Susan  (10  P.  D.,  92) 82 

Williams    v.    Williams    (130    N.    Y., 

193) 305 

Wjlliamson,  Isaac  (1  P.  D.,  7) 265 

Williamson,  Wall  v.   (8  Ala.,  48;  11 

Ala.,   839) , -  520 

Wilson  V.  Browmlee   (24  Ark.,  586)  _  102 

Wilson,  Minna  (11  P.  D.,  339)—  383 

Wilson,  Rosie  (6  P.  D.,  133) __ 278 


64 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Page. 
Wlnne,  Jackson  v.    (7  Wend.   N.  Y., 

47) 488 

WInthrop    on    Military    Law    (1,    p. 

773) 81 

Winthrop  on  Military  Law   (1,  7C1- 

775) 502 

Wood,  Mary  M.  A.   (11  P.  D.,  158)-  335 

Worcester  v.  Georgia   (5  Pet.,  515)-  519 

Wriglit  V.  Wright  (80  Mich.,  572)—  12 


Y. 


Page. 


Yates  V.  Houston   (3  Tex.,  433) 315 

Yates,  Lizzie  (10  P.  D.,  446) 335 

Yant,  John  (1  P.  D.,  118) 146 

Younge  v.  Guilbeau  (3  Wall.,  641)—  362 

Zoller,  Jones  v.  (29  Hun,  551) 310 


LAWS  CITED  AND  CONSTRUED. 

XJnited  States  Statutes  at  Large. 


I'age. 

1848,  July  19,  extra  pay 393 

1862,    February    13,   oath    of   enlist- 
ment— age 138 

1862,  March  16,  military  age 139 

1862,  July  4,  act  March  3,  1901 317 

1862,  July  14    (sec.  2),  widows  and 
minors 83 

1863,  March  3,  draft 276 

1864,  July  4,  military  age 138,  139 

1864,  July  4  (sec.  7),  remarriage 83 

1864,  July  4,  remarriage — act  March 

3,  1901 318 

1865,  March    3    (sec.    4),    death    or 
remarriage 141 

1865,  March  3  (sec.  4),  remarriage —  318 

1865,  March  3   (sec.  4),  widows  and 

minor's   pension 83 

1866,  July    25,    remarriage — widow's 

pension  to 85 

1867,  March    2    (sec    6),    navy    pen- 

sions    169 

1868,  July   27,   remarriage  of  widow 

or   mother   85 

1872,  May  15,  military  age 138 

1874,  July  18,  aid  and  attendance—  77 

1874,  July   18,    rate 299 

1878,  June   17,  blindness — rate 70 

1879,  January    25,    rerating 212 

1879,  March  3  : 

Blindness — rate    70 

Rerating — increase     212 

1880,  June  16,  aid  and  attendance — 

rate     77 

1882,  August  7  : 

Adulterous   cohabitation 258 

Marriage    440,  446 

Marriage,  proof  of 327 

Marriage,  New  York_ 311 

Marriage  in  Pennsylvania-  301 
(Sec.    2),    marriage   of   col- 
ored persons 161 

Marriage  of  Indians 517 

1882,  August   8,    payment   to   guard- 
ian      151 

1884,  July  4  (sec.  4),  fee 527 

1885,  March      3,       presumption      of 

soundness     265 

1886,  August  4,  amputation 477 

1886,  August   7,    marriage — Indians-  477 

1887,  January   29,   fee 526 

1889,  March  1,  accrued  pension 406 


1890,  March  4  :  Page. 

Aid  and  attendance — rate-  77 
Rate    70,299 

1890,  April   11,  deserter's  release 320 

1890,  June  27  : 


Accrued    pension — payment 

(Sec.  2),  civilians 

(Sec.    3),    death    at    claim- 
ant's hand 

Dependent    widow    

(Sec.       4707),       dependent 

parents     

Desertion — discharge     

Drafted  man  or  substitute- 

(Sec.   3),   guardianship 

Helpless  minor 266, 

Increase 17, 

Identity   

Marriage    

(Sec.      3),      marriage — im- 
pediment     

Marriage  in  North  Carolina 
(Sec.  3),  marriage  of  slaves, 

Kentucky  

Remarriage    

(Sec.  1),  means  of  support 

Minor's  pension 25, 

Missouri    militia    367, 

Muster   

(Sec.    2),    rate — disability- 
Renewal  

(Sec.    3),    restoration,    act 

March  3,   1901 

Service  

(Sec.  2),  service  during  re- 
bellion     

Service — desertion    

Service — 4701     

(Sec.  2),  void  enlistment — 
age    

1891,  March  3,  fee 

1892,  July  14,  aid  and  attendance — 


20  S 
354 


180 
40 

24 
450 
273 
1 
527 
331 
22S 
505 

106 

287 

159 
509 
361 
511 
369 
500 
319 
45 

114 
466 

186 
226 
407 

137 
526 
21, 
77,  215 

Rate   299 

1893,  January   5,   fee 525 

1893,  December  21  : 

Reduction — notice    _ -1 

Suspension 151,379 

1895,  March   2,   accrued  pension 405 

1895,  March    2,    reimbursement — fu- 
neral expenses   289 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


65 


Pago. 
1896,  March      13,      presumption      of 

death    112,208 

1898,  March  30,  the  Maine — sea  pay       428 

1899,  March  3  : 

Appeals — practice     225 

Articles  of  separation 364 

Commencement — proof 370 

Construction    of    statutes- _        163 
Declaration — jurisdiction  _        263 

Desertion 421 

Desertion,    separation 56 

Desertion,   domicile 412 

Division    of    pension__J 7,  370 

Jurisdiction,     construction.       337 

Limitation 479 

Notice     44,  157 

Practice   411 


Page. 

1899,  March  3— Continued. 

Residence,    Soldiers'   IIome_        490 
State  Home 237 

1900,  May  9  : 

Amending     act     June     27, 

1890    322 

Income 266 

Restoration,    act    March    3, 

1901    114 

1901,  March     1,     special     act,     com- 

mencement          49 

1901,  March  3  : 

Divorce    510 

Fee    5,29.111 

Remarriage,   restoration 114 

Restoration    316 

1902,  July  1,  desertion,  discharge-  450,  451 


Sections  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States. 


Page. 
1219.  Service — muster 500 

2141.   Loss  of  warrant 183 

2443   and  2444.  Loss  of  B.   L.   war- 
rant            184 

4692-3.  Desertion    381 

4693.   Militia 385 

4693.  Muster — service 500 

4701.  Length  of  service 392,  407 

4702.  Dependent  relatives 391 

4702.   Desertion     450,  451 

4702.  Marriage  of  Indians 520 

4705.   Marriage    of    Indians 517 

4705.  Marriage  of  colored  persons —       161 
4705.  Means  of  support 473 


Pkge. 

4707.  Dependent   parents.  24,  130,  362,  401 

4708.  Remarriage 141 

4708.  Restoration — widows    316 

4715.  Withholding   pension — widow-  166 

4716.  Conscription     45 

4716.  Voluntary  aiding  and  abetting  13 

4756.  Withholding   pension — widow-  166 

4757.  Withholding  pension — widow-  166 

4766.  Desertion    377 

4766.  Payment  to  guardian 151 

4766.  Suspension    377 

4776.  Medical    referee 322 

4783.  Embezzlement — guardian 149 


State  Statutes. 


Page. 
Cherokee    Nation,    act    November    5, 

1859,  divorce 475 

Kentucky,  Rev.  Stat.,  chap.  52,  mar- 
riage         440 

Kentucky,    Rev.    Stat.,    1860,    chap. 

28,  presumption  of  death 293 

Kentucky,    act    February    14,    1866, 

marriage  of  colored  persons 162 

Michigan,    1    Howells   Stat.,   p.   488, 

support  of  parent 362 

Michigan,  1  Howells  Stat.,  sees.  2,  3, 

and  4,  support  of  relatives 363 

New  Hampshire,  Gen.  Stat,  and  Sup., 

marriage    446 


Page. 

New  York,  3  Rev.  Stat.,  art.  1,  chap. 

8,  marriage 340 

New  York,  Rev.  Stat.,  suit  to  annul 

marriage    311 

New  York,  3  Rev.  Stat.,  marriage 514 

Massachusetts,  Gen.  Stat.,  chap.  81, 

support  of  poor 473 

North   Carolina,   Code   of   1872,   sec. 

1842,  marriage  of  slaves 288 

Ohio,  Stat.,  sec.  4188,  means  of  sup- 
port            268 

Tennessee,  Code,  sec.  3293,  marriage 

of    slaves 469,  514,  515 


13070—06- 


PENSION  DECISIONS— VOLUME  13. 


TABLE  OF  CASES  CITED. 


A. 


Page. 

Adair  v.  Mette  (156  Mo.,  496) 62 

Adams  v.  Adams  (12  P.  D.,  370)  ___  23, 
77,  136,  208,  212,  271,  364,  412 

Adams,  Elizabeth   (12  P.D.,  312) ___  121 
Adams,    Moses    (26    Fee    P.    L.    Bk., 

419)    446 

Administrator    of    J.     W.     Jolinson, 

Lucy  Johnson  r.  (30  Mo.,  72) 415 

Alden,  Pruden  v.   (23  Picls.,  184) ___  278 

Alexander,  A.  P.   (6  P.  D.,  40) 152 

Alire,  Julian  (7  L.  B.  P.,  332) 469 

American  and  English  Encyclopedia 

of  Law    (2   ed.,   pp.   370-875,    (f) 

and  note  1,  p.  877) 80,  191 

Ames,  Joel   (8  P.  D.,  171) 290 

Amos,  George  W.  (8  P.  D.,  271) 469 

Amy,    City    of    Galena   v.    (5    Wall., 

706)     -51 

Andrews  v.  Page  (3  Heisk.,  666)—  141 

Archanhault,  Syprian  (6  P.  D.,  240)_  231 
Armstrong,    Cross   v.    (44    Ohio    St., 

613-627)     210,236 

Arredondo,  United  States  v.'  (6  Pet., 

715)    369 

Arrington  v.  Arrington  (116  N.  Car., 

170)    - 233 

Arthur  v.  Horner  (96  U.  S.,  137)—  251 
Ashford  r.  Metropolitan  Life  Insur- 
ance Company  (80  Mo.  App.,  638)  _  69 
Assistant  Attorney-General  (6  P.  D., 

297)    473 

Attorney-General,    Opinions    (3    Op., 

135)    257 

B. 

Babbitt  v.  United  States  (16  C.  Cls. 

R.,    202) 417 

Ball,  Tamezon   (3  P.  D.,  183) 343 

Bank     of    Louisville     v.     Board     of 

School  Trustees  (83  Ky.,  230)—  65 
Bank     of     the     Metropolis,     United 

States  V.    (15   Peters,   400) 472 

Banks,  Mary  (4  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  438)—  443 
Barleyoung,  John  (7  P.  D.,  453)—  330 
Barry,    Succession    of    (48    La.    An., 

1143)    103 


Page. 

Barton  v.  Hinds  (46  Me.,  121) 275 

Baugher  r.  Nelson  (9  Gill,  Md.,  346j-  268 
Beatrie,     Schmisseur     v.     (147    111., 

210)    70 

Beers,  Edmund  O.  (7  P.  D.,  113)_  295,479 
Belgrade,  Camden  v.  (78  Me.,  204) _  278 
Benson,    John    (42    Fee    P.    L.    Bk., 

108)     76 

Benson,    McCaffery   v.    (40   La.   An., 

10)    104 

Bent  V.  Weeks  (44  Me.,  45) 275 

Berlin,  H.  S.    (4  P.  D.,  97) 281 

Bidlake,  Daniel   (3  P.  D.,  27) 88 

Bird,  Daniel  (10  P.  D.,  105) 141 

Bishop,  Angelina  M  (8  P.  D.,  357)—  303 
Bishop  on  Mar.,  Div.  and  Sep.   (vol. 

1,  par.  1302  and  note  3) 24 

Bishop  on  Mar.,  Div.  and  Sep.   (sees. 

923,   940,   951) 66,74 

Bittick,  State  r.   (103  Mo.,  183) 62 

Black's  Const.  Law   (chap.  22) 256 

Black  on  Inter,  of  Laws    (115) 380 

Blake»  Sylvester  F.    (L.  B.  No.  511, 

p.  445)   401 

Board   of  School   Trustees,   Bank   of 

Louisville  v.    (83  Ky.,  230) 65 

Board  of  Supervisors  of  Montgomery 

County,       Canajoharie       National 

Bank  v.   (67  N.  Y.,  109) 34 

Borrowdate.    Malter    v.     (28     Hun., 

N.  Y.,   336) 159 

Borthwick,    Charles    F.     (10    P.    D., 

249)     474 

Boulden     r.     Mclntire     (119     Ind., 

574)     221,  337 

Bouvier's    Law    Dictionary    (vol.    2, 

p.  580)    24 

Bowen,  United  States  r.   (100  U.  S., 


508) 


35 


Bower  et  ux.,  Senser  et  al.    (1  Pen- 
rose &  Watts,  Pa.,  450) 298 

Bowles,  Harvey   (10  P.  D.,  133) 35 

Brannock,    Dyer   et   al.    v.    (66   Mo.. 


391) 


62,  415 


Breadalbane    (L.    R.,    2    H.    L.    Sc, 


269) 


407 


Bremer  r.  Briggs  (32  Ohio  St.,  478)-        121 
Briggs,  Bremer  v.  (32  Ohio  St.,  478).       121 


66 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


67 


Page. 
Briggs,  Davie  v.   (97  U.  S.,  628)—  54,65 
Broom's  Legal  Maxims    (7tli  ed.,   p. 
U47)     

Brown,    Cliarles    F.,    widow    of     (8 
P.   D.,  92) 

Brown  v.  Clieatliam  (91  Tenn.,  97  )_ 
Brown,  Dickerson  r. (49  Miss.,  373) _ 
Brown,  Minerva   (11  P.  D.,  266)  — 


124 

467 

142 

64 

63,66 

Buck  1-.  Buck   (60  111.,  105) 424 

Buchanan,     Joseph     S.,     v.     Harvey, 

Adeline    (35  Mo.,  276) 415 

Buchanan,  Sarah  (10  P.  D.,  423)  —  -         70 

Buker,  Mary  A.   (1  P.  D.,  108) 343 

Bullock,  Lovell  (12  I'.  D.,  244)—  294,479 
Burton,  .Jeannette    (9  P.  D.,  31)—         90 

Bush,   Sarah    (9   P.  D.,   144) 347 

Butler    V.    Palmer    (1    Hill,    N.    Y., 

324)     268 

Buzick  v.  Buzick   (12  P.  D.,  143)—       424 


C. 


Cady   r.  Eggleston   (11  Mass.,  282 )_  278 

Calvert,  Carpenter  v.   (83  HI.,  62) __  479 

Calvert,  Floyd  v.  (53  Miss.,  37) 63 

Camben  r.  Belgrade  (78  Me.,  204)  __  278 

Campbell  v.  Holt  (115  U.  S.,  620)  __  268 
Canajoharie  National  Bank  r.  Board 

of     Supervisors     of     Montgomery 

County    (67  N.  Y.,  109) 34 

Cargile  r.  Wood  (63  Mo.,  501) 62 

Carley,  Timothy  L.   (7  P.  D.,  12)  _  244,281 

Carpenter  v.  Calvert  (83  HI.,  62)—  479 
Cartwright   et   al.    r.   McGown    (121 

111.,    388) 215,405 

Caton,  James  (6  P.  D.,  159) 295,481 

Caujolle  V.  Ferrie  (23  N.  Y.,  90)___  63 
Central      Pacific     Railroad,     United 

States  r.   (118  U.  S.,  235) 35 

Cheatham,  Brown  v.  (91  Tenn.,  97)-  142 
Chester,    Londonderry   v.    (2   N.    H., 

268,     279) 215 

Chew  Heong  v.  United  States   (112 

U.  S.,  536)— 251 

Chicago,    Milwaukee    and    St.    Paul 

Railway  Company    r.  United  States 

(127  U.   S.,  406) 251 

Chryst,  Mary  (8  P.  D.,  242) 3 

Citizens'    Gas    Company,    Louisville 

Gas  Company  v.  (115  U.  S.,  683).  •  35 
City    of    Galena    r.    Amy    (5    Wall., 

706) 251 

Claflin,  United  States  v.    (97  U.   S., 

546) 34,  251 

Clark,  Jacob  S.  (12  P.  D.,  70) 479 

Clark  et  al.,  Clark  v.   (48  Mo.  App., 

157) 209 

Clark  V.    Cox  (32  Mich.,  204,  211, 

212) 80,  303 

Cline,  William  (7  P.  D.,  119) 362 

Coal    Run    Coal    Company    v.    Jones 

(127  111.,  379) 70 

Coats  V.  Coats  (12  P.  D.,  507) 301, 

427,  432 

Cody,  Dunlap  v.  (31  Iowa,  260) 210 

Coffey,  George  M.  (4  P.  D.,  285) 252 


Page. 
Colby,  Caroline  E.  G.  (7  P.  D.,  24 )_       475 

Cole  V    Cole  (153  HI.,  585) 70 

Cole  V.  Cole  (3  Mo.  App.,  571) 209 

Collins,  Amy   (12  P.  D.,  292) 65 

Collins,  Martin   (11  P.  D.,  206) 239 

Collins  V.   Voorhees    (47   N.   J.    Eq., 

555) 403 

Com.,  Hampton  v.  (19  Pa.  St.,  329 )_       268 

Coney,  Angelina   (7  P.  D.,  390) 229 

Coney,   John  G.    (3   P.   D.,   200) 227 

Conover  v.  Conover  (11  P.  D.,  524 )_       207 
Cooley's  Const.  Lim.    (5th  ed.,  p.  76 

and  note  1-456  and  note  2)_. 35 

Cooley's  Const.  Lim.   (6th  ed.,  p.  494 

and   note   1) 210 

Cooper  V.  Cooper  (12  P.  D.,  163)—        23, 

77,  136,  237,  271,  367 

Cooper  V.  Cooper  (13  P.  D.,  208)—        23, 

348,  447 
Coosaw    Mining   Company    v.    South 

Carolina   (144  U.  S.,  557) 35 

Corder,    Frankboner    v.     (127    Ind., 

124) 337 

Corn,  Spier  r.  (33  Ohio  St.,  236).  210,236 
County  of  Middlesex,  Swan   v.    (101 

Mass.,  173) 81 

Cowen,  Franklin  S.  (7  P.  D.,  374)—       331 

Cowle,  Fowle  v.   (63  Me.,  245) 275 

Cowls  V.  Cowls  (3  (ill..  Ill,  435;  44 

Am.  Dec,  708  and  note) 424 

Cox,   Clark  v.    (32   Mich.,   204,   211, 

212) 80,  303 

Cox  V.  Cox   (19  Ohio  St.,  502)  ___  210,236 

Craig,  Mary  (13  P.  D.,  259) 349 

Crawford,  Joseph   (7  P.  D.,  582)  ___       293 
Cross    V.    Armstrong    (44    Ohio    St., 

613-627) 210,  236 

Crowe    i'.    Wilson    (65    Md.,   479 ;    57 

Am.    Rep.,    343) 434 

Cumby    v.    Henderson     (6    Tex.    Ct. 

App.,    519) 131 

Curtis,  Frank  H.,  widow  of  (2  P.  D., 

159) 235 


Dalrymple,  Wesley  (10  P.  D.,  250 )_  285 

Davie  v.  Briggs  (97  U.  S.,  628) 54,65 

Davis,    John,    minors    of    (9    P.    D., 

151) 152 

Davis,  Margaret  E.    (10  P.  D.,  236- 

237)  — 300 

Davis  V.  Shields  (26  Wend.,  351  and 

note    5) 401 

Decker,  Sarah  M.   (11  P.  D.,  200)  __  487 

Delozier  v.  Delozier  (13  P.  D.,  176)  _  347 

Den,  McEwen  i\  (24  How.,  242)—  35 
Dennis,    Annie    (9    P.    D.,    243-248- 

547) 124, 221 

Dennison  v.  Dennison  (35  Md.,  361)  51,73 
Derhammer,  Anna  (16  Fee  P.  L.  Bk., 

362) 445 

Dickson,  United  States  v.  (15  Peters 

U.   S.,   141) 398 

Dickerson  v.  Brown   (49  Miss.,  373)  64 

Diggs  V.  Wormley  (21  D.  C,  477)—  74 


68 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Page. 

Dilley,  Asa  H.  (11  P.  D.,  257) 280 

Dixon  V.  People   (18  Mich.,  84) 221 

Doan,  Louisa  J.    (8  P.  D.,  377) 181, 

221,  338 
Doane,  Melhop  v.  (31  Iowa,  597)  ___  210 
Douglas,  George  W.  (11  P.  D.,  448)  _  150 
Dudley  v.  Grayson  (6  Mon.,  263)  ___         67 

Dunlap  V.  Cody   (31  Iowa,  260) 210 

Durkee,  James  J.    (8  P.  D.,  152) ___       285 

Duross,  James  (13  P.  D.,  222) 460 

Dustin  V.  Dustin  (13  P.  D.,  77) 204, 

233,  301,  304 

Duvall,  James   (9  P.  D.,  218) 471 

Dyer,  David  H.   (9  P.  D.,  87) 239 

Dyer   et   al.    v.    Brannock    (66    Mo., 

391) 62,  415 

Dyer,  Tyler  v.    (13  Me.,  41) 278 


E. 


Eastridge,  Mary  E.  (8  P.  D.,  5) 471 

Edgar  v.  Stover  (59  Mo.,  87). 210 

Eggleston,  Cady  v.   (11  Mass.,  282)  _  278 
Eliason,  United  States  v.  (16  Peters, 

291) 421 

Ellis,  Eliza  J.  (12  P.  D.,  159) 51, 

59,  72,  100,  368 

Ellis  V.  Ellis   (11  P.  D.,  268) 207 

Elwell,  Gore  v.  (22  Me.,  442) 278 

Ely  V.  Holton   (15  N.  Y.,  595) 34 

Enfinger,  John  (13  P.  D.,  248) 351 

Ennis  v.  Smith  (14  How.,  430) 277 

Evans    v.    Reynolds    (32    Ohio    St., 

163) 124 

Everman,    Samuel    (Assistant   Secre- 
tary Hawkins,  1  P.  D.,  418) 231 

Ewing  et  al.,  Sneed  v.    (5  J.  J.  M., 

490) 66 

Exchange  Bank,  Knox  v.   (12  Wall., 

379) 278 

Exton  V.  Jule  (14  N.  J.  Eq.,  501)—  277 


Fairfield  v.  Gullifer  (49  Me.,  360) __  275 
Fanning  v.  Fanning  (13  P.  D.,  161)        347 

Farrell,  Edward  (7  P.  D.,  532) 331 

Fellows,  Harriet  M.  (7  P.  D.,  387)  __  175 
Ferrie,  C^ujolle  v.  (23  N.  Y.,  90) __  63 
Filones  v.  Filones  (12  P.  D.,  237)—  367 
Fisher  v.  Fisher  (12  P.  D.,  336)  ___  77, 
161,  233,  301,  303 

Fisk,  Mary  J.  (11  P.  D.,  162) 400,498 

Fitler  v.  Fitler  (33  Pa.  St.,  50) 145 

Fleck,  George  W.    (7  P.  D.,  343) __  48,240 

Fleck,  State  v.   (54  Iowa,  429) 210 

Floyd  v.  Calvert,  (53  Miss.,  37) 63 

Flying,  an  Indian  (8  P.  D.,  376)  ___  76 
Flynn,  Ellen  (widow)  (8  P.  D.,  54)  _  342 
Fontenette,    Pierre   v.    (25    La.    An., 

617) 100 

Foot,  Penny  wit  (27  Ohio  St.,  600)  210,  236 
Forbin  v.  Forbin  (13  P.  D.,  120) ___       221 

Fore,  Marx  v.   (51  Mo.,  69) 210 

Foster,  Job  (3  P.  D.,  35) 467 

Fowle  V.  Cowle   (63  Me.,  245) 275 


Page. 
Frankboner    v.    Corder     (127    Ind., 

124) 337 

Freeman    on    Judgments    (4    ed.,    p. 

133  and  note  "  1 '') 210 

French  v.  Pratt  (27  Me.,  381)——-  275 

G. 

Gabriel,  Francoise  (12  P.  D.,  382)  __  341 

Gates,  Golahar  r.    (20  Mo.,  238) 210 

Germain,  Louisa  C.  (11  P.  D.,  66) _  66,93 
Germaine,   United   States  v.    (9»   U. 

S.,  508)    420 

Gilbert,  George  W.   (9  P.  D.,  279)  __  252 

Gillespie,  John   (13  P.  D.,  280) 381 

Gilliland,  Mary  J.  (13  P.  D.,  90)_  279,402 
Girod    V.    Lewis    (7    Martin    (La.), 

559)    60,  100 

Goard,  John  R.   (9  P.  D.,  355) 287 

Goin,  Frederick  P.   (9  P.  D.,  423) __  460 

Golahar  v.  Gates   (20  Mo.,  238) 210 

Goldenburg,    United    States   v.    (168 

U.   S.,  95) 35,261 

Goodman,  Mary  A.  (13  P.  D.,  37) 40 

Gore  V.  Elwell   (22  Me.,  442) 278 

Grand  Lodge  A.  O.  U.  W.,  Kendrick, 

etc.,  V.   (8  Ky.,  L.  R.,  149) 65 

Graves,   James  R.,   minor  of    (13   P. 

D.,    148)    415 

Grayson,  Dudley  v.   (6  Mon.,  263 )__  67 

Griffin,  Seth  W.  II.  (6  P.  D.,  246)  __  88 
Green,  Ann  (12  P.  D.,  306-310).  104,277 
Green,    United    States    v.    (98    Fed. 

Rep.,  63)    123,  222 

Green  v.  Green  et  al.  (126  Mo.,  17)-  416 
Greenleaf  on  Evidence   (vol.  1,  sees. 

34,  108,  509,  525,  550) __   61,97,277,278 

Guinn,  Rogers  v.   (21  Iowa,  58) 210 

Gullifer,  Fairfield  v.   (49  Me.,  360)  _  275 

Guyot,  Hilton  v.   (159  U.  S.,  167)—  277 

H. 

Hagarty,    William    H.     (10    P.    D., 

359) 280 

Hallett,  Emma  J.   (13  P.  D.,  31 )_  250,261 

Halstead,  Alfred   (7  P.  D.,  359) 76 

Hamilton,  Alfred  S.,  minor  of  (7  P. 

D.,  437) 372 

Hamilton    v.    Rathbone    (175    U.    S., 

419)    35 

Hamilton    v.    State    (53    Am.    Rep., 

491   and   note) 400 

Hamlin    v.    Talbott    (72    Mo.,    App., 

22)    210 

Hampton  v.  Com.  (19  Pa.  St.,  329)  _  268 
Hankinson,    Obediah    P.     (9    P.    D., 

292)    48 

Hannan,  Joseph  (9  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  76) _  469 

Hantch  v.  Hantch  (12  P.  D.,  44)—  207 
Hardin's     Ex.     v.     Harrington     (11 

Bush.,  367)    66 

Harden,    Margaret    E.     (12    P.     D., 

278)    66 

Harrington,     Hardin's     Ex.     r.     (11 

Bush,  367) 66 


PEKSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


69 


Page. 

Harris,  T.  A.   (7  P.  D.,  50) 468,471 

Harris  r.  Harris  (8  HI.,  App.,  57)_  70,221 
Harris  v.  Harris  (12  P.  D.,  7,  9,  10, 

12)    300,301,427,432 

Harrison  v.  Lincoln  (48  Me.,  205)  __  279 
Hart  V.  Hoss  and  Elder  (26  La.  An.. 

90)    100,  174 

Hartford  v.  United  States  (8  Cranch, 

109)    250 

Hartman,   Meyer   v.    (14   Mo.,   App., 

132)    210 

Harvey,    Adeline,    Joseph    S.    Buch- 
anan V.    (35  Mo.,  276) 415 

Hawkins,  Lettie   (8  P.  D.,  22) 74 

Hawkins,  Margaret  (10  P.  D.,  191 )_  171 
Hayford,  Ira  W.  (9  P.  D.,  307)  __  295,460 
Heath,  United  States  v.    (3  Cranch, 

398)    35 

Hegeman,  Moore  r.  (92  N.  Y.,  521 )_  159 
Hendee,  United  States  v.  (124  U.  S., 

809)    417 

Henderson,    Cumby    v.     (6    Tex.    Ct. 

App.,  519) 131 

Henderson's   Tobacco    (11    Wall.,    U. 

S.,  652)    251 

Henry,    Red    Rock    v.     (106    U.    S., 

596)    34,251 

Hewitt  V.  Long  (76  111.,  399-409 )__  424 
Hewitt   V.    Wilcox    (1    Mete,    Mass., 

154)    268 

Higgins,  Annie   (10  P.  D.,  110) 235 

Hill,  George  W.  (7  P.  D.,  235) 239 

Hill,  John  J.   (7  P.  D.,  142) 295,479 

Hilton  V.  Guyot  (159  U.  S.,  167)___        277 

Hinds,  Barton  r.    (46  Me.,  121) 275 

Hirsch,  Robert    (2  P.   D.,  304) 88 

Hoffman  v.  Hoffman  (43  Mo.,  547) _  209 
Holland  v.   Mayor  of  Baltimoi-e   (11 

Md.,  186;    69  Am.  Dec,  195) 434 

Holt,  Campbell  v.   (115  U.  S.,  620 )_       268 

Holton,  Ely  v.   (15  N.  Y.,  595) 34 

Holtsworth,  Eveline  (7  P.  D.,  48)  __  303 
Horner,  Arthur  v.  (96  U.  S.,  137 )__  251 
Hoss    and    Elder,    Hart    v.    (26    La. 

An.,  90) 100,  174 

Houston,  Yates  v.  (3  Tex.,  433) 221 

Howard,    Lafayette    G.     (8    P.    D., 

230)    149,152 

Howell's      Annotated      Statutes      of 

Michigan     (vol.    1,    p.    1291,    sec. 

103)    81 

Hughes,  Mary  E.  (10  P.  D.,  67-71 )_  303 
Hughes,  William  H.  (9  P.  D.,  152) _  171 
Human,  .TeflfersonM.  (12  P.  D.,  500)_  239 
Hurst,  Thomas  L.  (7  P.  D.,  583) __  482 
Hyer,  Lodiska  C.  (8  P.  D.,  298) 124 


I. 


Ingersoll   v.    Ingersoll    (49    Pa.    St., 

249)    302 

Inhabitants  of  Twining,   Rex  v.    (2 

B.   and   Aid.,   386) 221 

Insurance    Companies,    Stockdale    i\ 

(20  Wall.,  323-332) 254 


J. 

Page. 
Jackson  v.   Jackson  (80  Md.,  176 ; 

82  Md..  17) 73 

.Tanes  v.  Janes  (5  Blackford,  141)  __  221 
Johnson,  John  (9  P\  D.,  34S)_  225,295,460 
.Johnson  v.  Johnson   (114  111.,  611)_  67,70 

Johnson  i\  .Tohnson  (45  Mo.,  595) 60 

.Johnson,   Lucy,    r.   Administrator  of 

John  W.  Johnson  (30  Mo.,  72)  __  415 
Johnson  v.  Ousted  (74  Mich.,  437)  _  145 
Jones,    Coal    Run   Company   v.    (127 

111.,  379)    70 

Jones    V.    .Tones    (36   Md.,    447 ;     45 

Md.,    144)    72 

Jones,  William  H.  (12  P.  D.,  215)  __       460 

.Jordan,  Nason  r.    (62  Me.,  480) 278 

Joyce,  Olivia  (7  P.  D.,  156) 445 

Jule,  Exton  v.   (14  N.  J.  Eq.,  501 )__        277 


Kearns,    Peter,    widow    of    (314    L. 

B.,  40)   124 

Keating,  James  (7  P.  D.,  280) 171 

Kehr  v.  Smith  (20  Wall.,  31) 24 

Kendrick,    etc.,    r.    Grand    Lodge   A. 

O.  U.  W.   (8  Ky.,  L.  R.,  149) 65 

Kennedy  v.  Kennedy  (87  111.,  250) __  177 

Kennedy,  Wood  v.  (19  Ind.,  68) 268 

Kent,  Fredricka  (10  P.  D.,  211) 121 

Kerr,   George,    mother   of    (8   P.    D., 

494)    190 

Kersey,  Sarah  A.  (6  P.  D.,  1) 239 

Kilmer  v.  Kilmer   (13  P.  D.,  270 )__  367 

King,  J.  C.   (9  P.  D.,  430) 394 

Kingsbury,  Harriet  K.    (7  P.   D.,  o. 

s.,  19) 443 

Kite,  Alfred  (9  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  232) ___  469 

Klein  V.  Landman  (29  Mo.,  250) ___  61 

69,  221 

Klein,  Moses  (8  P.  D.,  470) 3 

Knoop,  C.  F.  (8  P.  D.,  335) 3 

Knox  V.   Exchange  Bank    (12  Wall., 

379)    278 

Lake  v.  Lake  (13  P.  D.,  22) 366 

Lalone,  Margaret  (11  I'.  D.,  301) 184 

Lalone  v.  United  States   (164  U.  S., 

255)    487 

Landman,  Klein  v.  (29  Mo.,  259) 61, 

69,  221 
Larkin    v.    Saflfarans    et    al..    United 
States  circuit   court,   western   dis- 
trict   Tennessee     (15     Fed.     Rep., 

147)    266 

Laughlin,  .John    (9  P.  D.,  466) 229 

Lawrence  v.  Nelson  (113  Iowa,  277)  210 

Leaton,  Napton  v.  (71  Mo.,  25^-367)  210 

Lee  V.  Lee  (161  Mo.,  52) 60 

Lewis,    Girod    v.    (7    Martin    (La.), 

559)    60,  100 

Lewis,  Jennie  D.   (6  P.  D.,  294) 125 

Lilly,  Edward  (3  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  132) __  469 


70 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


Page 

Lincoln,  Harrison  v.  (48  Me.,  205) _  279 
Livengood   v.   Livengood    (13   V.   D., 

134)    212,364 

Livingston  v.  Williams  (75  Tex.,  9)_  132 
Lockyer    v.    Lockyer     (1    Edm.    Sel. 

Cases,  N.  Y.,  Cir.  Ct,  107) 388 

Londonderry    v.    Chester    (2    N.    H., 

268,    279) 215 

Long,  Hewitt  v.    (75  111.,  399-409) _  424 

Lore,  Wright  v.   (12  Ohio  St.,  619)  _  542 

Loringu.  Steineman  (1  Mete,  204)  _  276 

Loughry  v.  Loughry  (11  P.  D.,  523)  207 
Louisville  Gas  Company  v.  Citizens' 

Gas  Company  (115  U.  S.,  683) ___  35 
Louisiana   Sugar   Refining  Company, 
New   Orleans   Water   Works   Com- 
pany V.   (125  U.  S.,  18) 278 

Lucas,  Strothers  v.  (12  Pet.,  410) __  369 


M. 


McCaffery   v.   Benson    (40   La.    An., 

10)    104 

McClurney,  Elizabeth  (5  P.  D.,  o.  s., 

349)    469 

McCobl   V.    Smith    (1    Black.,   U.    S., 

459,    470) 250 

McCullum,  Mary  B.    (6  P.  D.,  93) __  215 

McEwen  v.  Den  (24  How.,  242) 35 

McGown,     Cartright     v.      (121     111., 

388)    215,405 

Mclntire,     Boulden     v.     (119     Ind., 

574)    221,337 

Mcintosh,  Eppenetus  W.    (10  P.   D., 

172)    295,479 

Mclnturff,  Laban  W.   (12  P.  D.,  77, 

299)    479 

McLaurine  v.  Monroe   (30  Mo.,  462)  210 

McQuay,  Charles  (10  P.  D.,  18) 331 

McReary,    Stevenson's   Heirs   v.    (20 

Miss.,    56) _■ 62 

McReynolds      v.      State      (5      Cold. 

(Tenn.),  18) 60 

Mackey,  Susannah  (8  P.  D.,  535) 229 

Malter  v.  Borrowdate    (28  Hun.,  N. 

Y.,  336) 159 

Martin,  Jackson   (7  P.  D.,  265) 474 

Marx  V.  Fore  (51  Mo.,  69) 210 

Maxcy,  White  v.  (64  Mo.,  552) 69 

May,  Christian  (8  P.  D.,  71) 487 

May,  Sarah  J.  (10  P.  D.,  53) 539 

Mays,  Benjamin  R.  (10  P.  D.,  109 )_  293 
Mayor  of  Baltimore,  Holland  v.   (11 

Md.,  186;  69  Am.  Dec,  195) 434 

Medley  v.  Medley  (12  P.  D.,  490)  ___  135, 

212,  367 
Meeker,  John  H.  (10  P.  D.,  182) __  35,229 
Meister  v.  Moore  (96  U.  S.,  76)  __  278,  370 

Melhop  V.  Doane  (31  Iowa,  597) 210 

Melton  V.  Melton  (13  P.  D.,  211)___  347 

Merritt,  Maria  (10  P.  D.,  157) 59 

Mette  Adair  v.  (156  Mo.,  496)  ___  62 
Metropolitan  Life  Insurance  Com- 
pany,   Ashford    v.    (80    Mo.    App., 

638)    69 


Page. 
Meyer    v.    Hartman    (14    Mo.    App., 

132)    210 

Millard  v.  Millard  (12  P.  D.,  263)  __  432 

Monholland,  Frances  (7  P.  D„  494 )_  461 

Monroe,  McLaurine  v.   (30  Mo.,  462)  210 

Moody,  Leander  (12  P.  D.,  212) 293 

Moore,  Mary  L.   (3  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  72) _  443 

Moore  v.  Hegeman  (92  N.  Y.,  521 )_  159 
Moore,  Meister  v.  (96  U.  S.,  76)  __  278,  370 
Moore  v.  Moore  (8  Abbott,  N.  Cases, 

N.  Y.,  171) 159 

Morse,  L.  D.  W.  (11  P.  D.,  183) 229 

Morton,  Almira  J.  (3  P.  D.,  353)  ___  343 
Morton,  United  States  v.  (112  U.  S., 

1) 417 

Mouat,  United  States  v.   (124  U.  S., 

303)    420 

Mudd,  Smothers  v.   (9  B.  M.,  492)  __  67 

Mulick,  John  G.  (12  P.  D.,  186) 331 

Mullin,  Chambers  C.  (2  P.  D.,  18)  __  469 

Mumson,  Charles  W^  (8  P.  D.,  386).  29 


N. 


Napton  V.  Leaton  (71  Mo.,  258-367)        210 

Nason  v.  Jordan  (62  Me.,  480) 278 

Navarro,  Succession  of   (24  La.  An., 

298)    104 

Nelson,  Baugher  v.  (9  Gill,  Md.,  346)        268 
Nelson,  Lawrence  v.  (113  Iowa,  277)        210 
Nelson  on  Div.  and   Sep.    (par.   580, 
and  note  1,  p.  543,  and  notes  1,  2, 

3,  4,  p.  544) 221 

New  Orleans  Water  Works  Company 
V.     Louisiana     Refining     Company 

(125   U.   S.,   18) 278 

Newman,  Seymour  v.   (77  Mo.  App., 

578)    210 

Norton,  Simpson  v.   (45  Me.,  281)—       276 


O. 


O'Brien,  Nora  (12  P.  D.,  32) 63,66 

OBryan  v.  O'Bryan  (12  Mo.,  16;  53 

Am.   Dec,  128) 389 

Oram  v.  Oram  (3  Redf.,  300) 159 

Orr,  Mary  C.   (10  P.  D.,  348;  11  P. 

D.,    131) 61 

Osborne,  Stephenson  v.  (90  Am.  Dec, 

369)    24 

Ousted,  Johnson  v.   (74  Mich.,  437).  145 

Ozborn,  Sarah  H.  (7 -P.  D.,  317) 252 


Page,  Andrews  v.  (3  Heisk.,  666)  __  141 
Pain,  alias  Foreman  (12  P.  D.,  351)  229 
Pain  V.  Pain  (37  Mo.  App.,  110) ___  61,  221 
Palmer,    Butler    v.    (1    Hill,    N.    Y., 

324)    268 

Palmer,  Esther  A.  (11  P.  D.,  320)—  66 
Parker  v.  Parker  (88  App.  Ct.  Rep., 

22)    179 

Passons,  Andrew  J.  (8  P.  D.,  416)  _  255,267 
Paul,  Jacob  (10  P.  D.,  pp.  422,  423, 

text)     38,39 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


71 


Page. 

Paxton,  Robert  B.  (4  P.  D.,  114)—  88 
Pearce,    Succession   of    (30   La.    An., 

1168)    100,174 

Pennybaker,  C.  D.   (2  P.  D.,  257) _—  281 

People,  Dixon  v.  (18  Mich.,  84) 221 

People,  Shannon  v.  (5  Mich.,  89) 145 

People,  Steele  v.  (88  111.  App.,  186)  _  424 
Perkins,   Harvey,   minors  of    (13   P. 

D.,    414) 541 

Peugnet  v.  Phelps   (48  Barb.,  N.  Y., 

566)    159 

Peyroux's    Rev.    Civ.    Code    of    1883 

(pp.  113,  116,  117,  118) 103 

Phelan  v.  Phelan  (135  111.,  445) 177 

Phelps,  Peugnet  v.  (48  Barb.,  N.  Y., 

566)    159 

Pierce  v.  Pierce  (12  P.  D.,  412-413- 

415)    77,233,801,304 

Pierre    v.    Fontenette    (25    La.    An., 

617)    100 

Pierson,  Allen  B.,  minor  of  (13  P.  D., 

151)    415 

Pike,  Herman  G.  (8  P.  D.,  314) 487 

Pinckley,  Ann  F.  (8  P.  D.,  446) 303 

Plaster  v.  Plaster   (47  111.,  290,  and 

53   111.,  445) 424 

Powell  V.  Powell  (13  P.  D.,  236)—  448 

Pratt,  French  v.  (27  Me.,  381) 275 

Preston,  Hilliard  (8  P.  D.,  374) 88 

Pruden  v.  Alden  (23  Pick.,  184) 278 

Pulver,  Jonas  W.,  minors  of   (10  P. 

D.,  227)   415,542 

Purnell,  Mollie  (10  P.  D.,  431) 74 


B. 


Railroad  Company  v.  Rock  (4  Wall., 

177)    278 

Randall,  Succession  of   (26  La.  An., 

163)    100 

Ranlett,  United  States  v.  (172  U.  S., 

133) 34,251 

Rathbone,   Hamilton  v.    (175   U.   S., 

419)    35 

Redbird,  Jack,  minor  of   (12  P.  D., 

517)    72,174,368 

Red  Rock  v.  Henry  (106  U.  S.,  596)  _  34,  251 
Reese,   United   States  v.    (92   U.   S., 

214-244)    , 35 

Rex  V.  Inhabitants  of  Twining  (2  B. 

and  Aid.,  386) 221 

Reynolds,  Evans  v.  (32  Ohio  St.,  163)        124 

Rice,  Mary  J.  (7  P.  D.,  569) 474 

Richards  v.  Richards  (11  P.  D.,  90) _      177, 

271,  367,  432 
Richardson  v.  Smith  (80  Md.,  189.)  49,73 
Riley,  Thomas  (5  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  304) __  469 
Ritter  v.  Ritter  ( 13  P.  D.,  40)  _    162,  176,  347 

Roberts,  Alonzo  (8  P.  D.,  83) 304 

Rock,  Railroad  Company  v.  (4  Wall., 

177)    278 

Rogers  v.  Guinn  (21  Iowa,  58) 210 

Ross,  Lucinda  (12  P.  D.,  474) 72,369 

Ross  V.  Ross  (34  La.  An.,  860)  ___  100,  175 
Ross  V.  Ross  (123  Mass.,  212) 276 


Page. 
Rothery,  Henry  N.  (11  P.  D.,  255)—      177, 

271,  367 
Rothery   v.   Rothery    (11   P.   D.,   77, 

377)    177,271,367,427,432 

Rush  V.  Rush  (46  Iowa,  648,  and  48 

Iowa,   701)    —       210 


S. 


Saffarans  et  al..  United  States  Circuit 
Court  Western  District  Tennessee, 

Larkin  v.  (15  Fed.  Rep.,  147) 266 

Schmlsseur  v.  Beatrie  (147  Ill.,-210)  70 
Schneider,     Elizabeth      (12     P.     D., 

348)    124,221 

Schouler's    Dom.    Rel.    (5    ed.,    320- 

339)    302 

Schouler's   Dom.    Rel.    (12   ed.,   par. 

237)    ; 424 

Schweigert,  Maggie  (5  P.  D.,  32) 344 

Sconey,  James  (1  P.  D.,  372) 469 

Scott  V.  Scott  (12  P.  D.,    411-412)-   143,  208 
Sedgwick  on  Stat.  Constr.  (par.  202)  _  256 
Senser  et  al.  v.  Bower  et  ux.  (1  Pen- 
rose and  Watts,  Pa.,  450) 298 

Sewell   V.   Sewell    (122   Mass.,   156- 

161)    209 

Seymour  v.  Newman   (77  Mo.  App., 

578) 210 

Shannon,  Andrew  J.  (7  P.  D.,  64)  __  229 

Shannon  v.  People  (5  Mich.,  89) 145 

Sharpe,  Marie  (8  P.  D.,  175) 56 

Shields,  Davis  v.  (26  Wend.,  351,  and 

note  5)    401 

Shinnaugh,  Calvan  (10  P.  D.,  210)  __  252 

Shon  V.  Waterson  (17  Wall.,  596) __  35 

Shouse,  Hiram  C.  (9  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  66)  _  469 

Showalter,  Simon  P.  (7  P.  D.,  478) _  293 

Simpson  i'.  Norton  (45  Me.,  281)  ___  276 
Sinla,  Polly  Ann  Chulaska  (7  P.  D., 

353)    — —  368 

Smith,  Ennis  v.  (14  How.,  430) 277 

Smith,  Kehr  v.  (20  Wall.,  31) 24 

Smith,    McCool    v.     (1    Black.,    459, 

470)    250 

Smith,  Richardson  v.  (80  Md.,  189)  _  49,73 

Smith  V.  Smith  (13  P.  D.,  177) 301, 

427,  432 
Smith  V.  Smith  (43  La.  An,,  1140).  102 
Smothers  v.  Mudd  (9  B.  M.,  492)  ___  67 
Sneed  v.  Ewing  et  al.  (5  J.  J.  M.,  490)  66 
South  Carolina,  Coosaw  Mining  Com- 
pany r.  (144  U.  S.,  557) 35 

Spier  V.  Corll  (33  Ohio  St.,  236)  _  210,236 

Squire  v.  State  (46  Ind.,  459) 221 

Stack,  John  G.,  mother  of  (2  P.  D., 

153) 342 

Stall,  State  v.  (17  Wall.,  U.  S.,  425)  _  251 
Stanton  v.  Wilson's  executors  (3  Day, 

Conn.,  37;  3  Am.  Dec,  255-258)  _  423 

Stark  on  Ev.  (p.  4  and  1248-1249).  299 

State  V.  Bittick  (103  Mo.,  183) 62 

State  V.  Fleck  (54  Iowa,  429) 210 

State,   Hamilton  v.  (53  Am.  Rep.,  491, 

and  note)    400 


72 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Page 
State,  McReynolds  r.(5  Cold.  (Tenn.), 

18)    60 

State,  Squire  v.   (46  Ind.,  459) 221 

State  V.  Stall  (17  Wall.,  U.  S.,  425) _  251 

State,  Swartz  v.  (13  Ohio  C.  C,  62)  _  121 
State,  Van  Fossen  v.    (27  Ohio  St., 

317)    210,236 

Steele  v.  People  (88  111.  App.,  186)  _  424 

Steineman,  Loring  r.  (1  Mete,  204 )_  276 
Stephenson  v.  Osborne  (90  Am.  Dec, 

30)    24 

Stevenson's    Heirs    v.    McReary    (20 

Miss.,   56)    ^ 62 

Stewart  on  Husband  and  Wife  (sees. 

249,  250,  289)    275 

Stewart    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(pars.  180,  191,  251,  252)  ___  24,80,432 
Still,  James,  alias  .Tames,  minors  of 

(12  P.  D.,  25) 150 

Stockdale  v.  Insurance  Companies  (20 

Wall.,   323-332)    254 

Stoflfer  V.  Stoffer  (50  Mich.,  491)  ___  179 

Stolzenberg,  Lewis  P.  (1  P.  D.,  428)  _  88 
Storms,  Mary  J.  (10  P.  D.,  192)  __  277,369 
Story  on  Conflict  of  Law  (7  ed.,  par. 

229a  and  note  *'  1,"  p.  258) 210 

Stover,  Edger  v.  (59  Mo.,  87) 210 

Strothers  v.  Lucas  (12  Pet.,  410) ___  369 
Sutherland  on  Stat.  Const,  (pars.  133, 

255,  256,  283,  284,  406,407) 34, 

35,  191,  253,  351 
Sutherland    on    Stat.    Const,     (sees. 

202-204)    380 

Swan  V.  County  of  Middlesex    (101 

Mass.,  173)    81 

Swartz,  John  (2  P.  D.,  3) 469 

Swartz  V.  State  (13  Ohio  C.  C,  62)  __  121 

Swift  V.  Tyson  (16  Pet.,  18) 272,277 

T. 

Talbott,  Hamlin  i\  (72  Mo.  App.,  22)  210 
Taylor,   Succession   of    (39   La.   An., 

823)    104 

Taylor,  William  B.  (9  P.  D.,  360)  __  229 
Teeple  et  al.,  Wenning  et  al.  v.  (144 

Ind.,  189,  193)    220,337 

Teller,  United  States  v.   (107  U.  S., 

64-68)    255,256,472 

Teter  v.  Teter  (101  Ind.,  129) 221 

Thomas,  Peggy   (13  P.  D.,  98) 175 

Thompson,  Cassie   (8  P.  D.,  67) 231 

Thompson,  Jennette   (7  P.  D.,  262 )_  175 

Thompson,  Stephen  (7  P.  D.,  26) __  88 
Thompson    v.    Whitman     (18    Wall., 

457)    210 

Town    of    Greensborough    v.    Under- 

hill    (12   Vt,   604) 221 

Travers,   Alice  E.,   widow    (1   P.   D., 

110)    343 

Trosper,  .Tames   (8  P.  D.,  75) 202 

Trout,  John  R.    (11   P.   D.,  435) 48 

Tuttle,  Samuel,  father  of  (11  P.  D., 

278)    52,72 

Tyler  v.  Dyer   (13  Me.,  41) 278 

Tyson,  Swift  v.   (16  Pet.,  18) 272-277 


U. 

Page. 
Underbill,    Town    of    Greensborough 

V.   (12  Vt,  604) 221 

United  States  v.  Arredondo   (6  Pet., 

715)    369 

United    States,    Babbitt    v.     (16    C. 

Cls.    R.,    202) 417 

United    States    r.    Bank   of    the   Me- 
tropolis  (15  Peters,  400) 472 

United  States  v.  Bowen   (100  U.  S., 

508)    35 

United  States  v.  Central  Pacific  Rail- 
road  (118  U.  S.,  235) 35 

United  States,  Chew  Heong  v.   (112 

U.  S.,  536) 251 

United    States,    Chicago,    Milwaukee 

and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company  r. 

(127   U.   S.,  406) 251 

United   States   t'.   Claflin    (97   U.    S., 

546)    34,251 

United  States  i\  Dickson  (15  Peters, 

U.  S.,  141) 398 

United  States  v.  Eliason  (16  Peters, 

291)    421 

United    States   v.    Germaine    (99   U. 

S.,   508)    420 

United    States    v.    Goldenburg    (168 

U.    S.,   95) 35,261 

United    States    v.    Green     (98    Fed. 

Rep.,  63)    123,222 

United      States,      Hartford      v.      (8 

Cranch,  109) 250 

United   States   v.   Heath    (3   Cranch, 

398) 35 

United    States    v.    Hendee    (124    U. 

S.,  309)    417 

United  States,  Lalone  v.   (164  U.  S., 

255)    487 

United  States  v.  Morton   (112  U.  S., 

1)    417 

United  States  v.  Mouat   (124  U.   S., 

303)    420 

United  States  v.  Ranlett  (172  U.  S., 

133)    34,251 

United    States   v.    Reese    (92   U.    S., 

214-244)    35 

United   States  v.  Teller   (107  U.   S., 

64-68)    255,256,472 

United     States     v.     Wiltberger      (5 

Wheat.,   76) 35 

United     States,     Wisconsin     Central 

Railroad  v.   (164  U.  S.,  190 35 

United    States,    Wood    r.     (16    Pet., 

342,  363)    250 

United  States,  Yerke  v.    (173  U.   S., 

442)    35 


Van   Fossen  v.   State    (27   Ohio   St., 

317)    210,236 

Van  Houten  i->.   Van   Houten    (12  P. 

D.,  157) 208 

Veale,  Alonzo  C.   (11  P.  D.,  299)  ___       474 
Viles,  Mahala  (12  P.  D.,  468) 66 


PENSION   AND  BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


73 


Page. 
Voorhees,   Collins  v.    (47  N.  J.    Eq., 

555)    403 

Voorhees  v.  Voorhees   (46  N.  J.  Eq., 

411)    403 

TV. 
Wadsworth,     Welch     v.     (30    Conn., 

149)    2G8 

Wagner.  Caroline  (12  P.  D.,  134)  __  Gl 
Wallinj^ham  r.   Wallingham   (21  Mo. 

App.,  600)    60,70 

Wangelin,  Emma  T.  (9  P.  D.,  76) __  125 
Waterman    on    Spec.    Perf.    of   Cont. 

(sec.  240)    400 

Waterson,  Shon  v.  (17  Wall.,  596)  _  35 
Watkins,    .Tulia    A.    E.     (10    P.    D., 

202)    479 

Weeks,  Bent  r.   (44  Me.,  45) 275 

Welch,  George  (3  P.  D.,  121) 295 

Welch     V.     Wadsworth     (30     Conn., 

149)    268 

Wenning  et  al.  v.  Teeple  et  al.   (144 

Ind.,  189) 337 

Wescott,  Alonzo  F.   (IP.   D.,  316)  __  88 

Wetherbee,  D.  A.  (7  P.  D.,  562) 474 

Weyant,  William  B.  (9  P.  D.,  276)  __       190 

Whalen,  Anna  M.   (9  P.  D.,  346) 229 

Whallan,  Jessie  M.,  widow  (8  P.  D., 

131)    342 

Wharton    on    Ev.     (sees.     873,    889, 

1245,    1323) 74,287,400 

Wheaton,  Cyrus  G.  (7  P.  D.,  225)—  482 
Whetstone  v.   Whetstone    (31    Iowa, 

276) 210 

Whitcomb    v.    Whitcomb    (46    Iowa, 

437) 210 

White  V.  Maxcy  (64  Mo.,  552) 69 


Page. 
Whitman,    Thompson    v.    (18    Wall., 

457)    _• 210 

Whitney     v.     Whitney     (13     P.     D., 

301)    427,432 

Wilcox,    Hewitt    v.    (1   Mete,   Mass., 

154)    268 

Williams,  John  S.   (10  P.  D.,  169)_  35,229 

Williams,  Livingston  v.  (75  Tex.,  9)_  132 

Williamson,  Isaac  (1  P.  D.,  7) 88 

Wilson,  Crowe  v.    (65  Md.,  479;    57 

Am.   Rep.,   343) 434 

Wilson's    Executors,    Stanton    i-.    (3 

Day,  Conn.,  37  ;    3  Am.  Dec,  255- 

258)     423 

Wilson,  Minna  (11  P.  D.,  339) 175 

Wilson,  William  (10  P.  D.,  232) 455 

Wiltberger,     United     States     v.      (5 

Wheat.,    76) 35 

Winchell,  Levi  M.  (510  L,  B.,  356 )_  453 
Winn,  Joseph  A.,  mother  of  (5  P.  D., 

o.  s.,   110) 443 

Wisconsin  Central  Railroad  v.  United 

States  (164  U.  S.,  190) 35 

Wood,  Cargile  v.  (63  Mo.,  501) 62 

Wood  V.  Kennedy  (19  Ind.,  68) 268 

Wood  V.  United  States  (16  Pet.,  342, 

363)    ^ 250 

Wormley,  Diggs  r.   (21  D.  C,  477)  __  74 

Wright  V.  Lore  (12  Ohio  St.,  619) __  542 

Wright  V.  Wright  (80  Mich.,  572) __  302 


Yates  V.  Houston  (3  Tex.,  433) 221 

Yerke  v.   United   States    (173   U.   S., 

442)     35 


LAWS  CITED  AND  CONSTRUED. 


TJnited  States  Statutes  at  Large. 


Page. 

1873,  March  3,  accrued  pension 190 

1874,  June  18,  aid  and  attendance  __  20 

1875,  March  1,  veterinary  surgeon 419 

1882,  August  7  : 

Evidence    272 

Laws  of  Indiana 337 

Marriage    51 

Marriage  of  colored  persons-  59 

Marriage,  Maryland 72 

Marriage  in  Missouri  and  Il- 
linois      69 

Marriage  in  Tennessee 140 

Marriage  of  slaves  in  Texas-  129 

1882,  July  25,  special  act 95 

1886,     March      19,      reimbursement, 

fraud    201 

1886,  August  4,  total  disability  in  arm  362 
1890,  .Tune  27  : 

Act  March  6,    1896 283 

Cohabitation   338 

Commencement 242, 

330,  352,  398 

Dependence    31,  125 


1890,  June  27 — Continued. 
Dependent  mother 

Desertion 

Discharge     

Income 

Increase  


Page. 

___       241 
46 
__-        237 
448 
_—        283 
Joint    resolution,    1902—  346,  349 

Legitimacy     541 

Marriage    of    colored    per- 
sons             59 

Marriage    and     divorce     in 

New  York   157 

Marriage   in   Maryland 70 

Minor's  pension 148,  151 

Mississippi       Marine      Bri- 
gade            226 

Record    v    230 

Section  4720,  Revised  Stat- 
utes           331 

Service     230 

Special   act   331 

Termination  of  war  of  re- 
bellion           330 


74 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Page. 
1893,  January  5,  fee 75 

1895,  March  2,  accrued  pension 190 

1896,  March  6,  commencements 283 

1896,  March      13,      presumption      of 

death    54 

1899,  March  2,  veterinary  surgeon 418 

1809,  March  3 : 

Appeal,   evidence    299 

Attorney    233 

Character    383 

Failure  to  prosecute 411 

Fraud 236 

Desertion    24,  77, 

142,   143,   177.   180, 

212,    218,    301,    430 

Dismissal   _   161,  176,  211,  270,  347 

Jurisdiction     208 

Marriage    297 

Marriage    in    Ohio 120 

Minor,   divorce 422 

Moral  character 383 

Necessitous  circumstances  205,  302 


Page. 

1899,  March  3 — Continued. 

Notice     206 

Payment     22,  363 

Practice 134,  176,  211 

Rate,  rule  16 203 

Rule   19 542 

Rule   20 347 

Treasurer,   Soldiers'  Home_       363 

1900,  May  9,  retroactive  legislation-         31 

1901,  March  3: 

Act  March   3,   1865 286 

Remarriage    355 

Restoration    355,  435 

Restoration,   divorce 118 

Restoration  of  widows 286 

Two  pensions 378 

1902,  July    1  : 

Act  June  27,  1890 346,  349 

Desertion 346 

Disloyalty    248,  259,  395 

Retrospective   law 248, 259 


Sections  of  the  Kevised  Statutes  of  the  United  States. 


Page. 

1102.  Veterinary  surgeon 418 

4693.  Veterinary  surgeon 416 

4702.  Marriage 51 

4703.  Increase,    special    act 95 

4705.  Marriage 51 

4705.  Marriage,  act  June  27,  1890__  59 

4705.   Marriage,  Maryland,  colored 72 

4707.  Act  June  27,  1890,  dependence  432 

4708.  Void  marriage 444 


4715.  Two  pensions 379 

4716.  Joint       resolution       July       1, 

1902    128,395 

4718.  Accrued  pension 190 

4719.  Accrued  pension 188 

4719.  Restoration     392 

4720.  Fraud    428 

4720.  Special  act 331-428 


State  Statutes. 


Page. 

Kentucky  State  Stat.,  sec  2,  art.  1, 

ch.  52,  marriage,  sec.  16,  ch.  37 —  65 

Louisiana,  Civil  Code,  arts.  81,  182, 

slave  marriage 100 

Louisiana,  act  of  November  5,  1868, 

sees.  1  and  4,  marriage 101 

Louisiana,  Rev.  Stat.,  crim.  proceed- 
ings, sec.  1,  presumption  of  death.       101 

Louisiana,  Peyroux's  Civ.  Code,  1883, 
pp.  113,  116,  117,  and  118,  mar- 
riage             103 

Maryland,  1715,  ch.  44,  sec.  24,  mar- 
riage       51 

Maryland,  Code  of  Pub.  Genl.  Laws, 

1867,  sec.  13,  ch.  62 52 

Maryland,  act  1777,  sees.  3  and  11, 

marriage    73 

Maryland,  act  March  22,  1867,  mar- 
riage       73 


Page. 

Michigan,  Howell's  Annotated  Stats., 
vol.  1,  sec.  103,  p.  1291,  assess- 
ment       81 

Mississippi,  1869,  December  1,  mar- 
riage , 58 

New  Hampshire,  Pub.  Stat.,  ch.  174, 

sec.   15,  marriage 215 

New  York,  Rev.  Stat.,  1859,  part  2, 

ch.  8,  sec.  62,  marriage 158 

Ohio,    Rev.    Stat.,    1880,    sec.    4175. 

legitimacy    542 

Tennessee,  act  May  26,  1866,  mar- 
riage  of   colored   persons 142 

Texas,  Const.,   March   30,   1870;  act 

August  15,  1870 131 

Virginia,     act     February     27,     1866, 

marriage    146-147 


PENSION  DECISIONS— VOLUME  14. 


TABLE  OF  CASES  CITED. 


Page, 

Abbot's  Trial  Evidence,  353 79 

"Abbotsford,"  The  (98  U.  S.,  440) __         34 

Adams  r,  Adams  (12  P.  D,,  370) 122, 

237,  371,  482 

Adams  v.  Palmer  (51  Me.,  480) 351 

Adams,  Elizabeth  (12  P.  D.,  212) __  429 
Adams,  Moses  (26  Fee  P.  L.  B.,  228)  275 
Afflerbach,  John  II.  (11  P.  D.,  508)  _ 

Agne,  Matilda   (9  P.  D.,  327) 

Alexander    v.    Alexander    (140    Ind., 

155) 

Alexander   v.   United    States    (4   Ct. 

Cls.,    218) 

Alexander,  United  States  v.  (12  Wal- 
lace,   177) 

American  and  English  Encyclopedia 


of  law  : 

(led. 

V.  1 

pp,   2  (n)  

212 

337,  942,  943 

8 

556 

11 

160 

15 

445 

17 

,325,  828 

25 

1019 

28 

531  (n)  

2ed. 

5 

883 

9 

•  736 

768 

773 

783 

15 

670 

875,877  (n.  1)  __ 

19 

1207,1209) 

257 

88 


413 


110 


34 


108 

87 

161 

87 

193 

381 

355 

96 

108 

342 

161 

47 

46 

403 

381 

140 

235 

324 

406 

342 

196 


Amos,  George  W.  (8  P.  D.,  271) 

Anderson  v.  Watt  (138  U.  S.,  706)  _ 

Andre  v.  State  (5  Iowa,  389) 

Archambault,  Syprian   (6  P.  D.,  240) 
Ashley  v.  Ashley  (13  P.  D.,  205)-  139,387 
Askey,  Huddleston  v.   (56  Ala.,  218)  35 

Assistant  Attorney-General  (6  P.  D., 

296) 153 

Attorney-General  (4  Op.,  70) 154 

.366 110 

7:        149 490 


Attorney-General  (7  Op.,  717). 
17:       192)  _. 


Page, 

110 

37 


Bailey,  Illingsworth  v.    (33  111.  Ap„ 

394) 295 

Bailey,  David  J,  (7  P,  D.,  173) ___  410,495 

Baker,  People  v.  (76  N.  Y.,  78) 176 

Baker,    William   A,,   sister   of    (9   P. 

D.,    504) 489 

Banks,  Griffin  v.   (24  How.,  215) __  20,179 

Barker  v.  Valentine  (125  Mich.,  336)  555 

Barleyoung,  John  (7  P.  D.,  453) 75 

Barnes,  William  A.  (22  L,  D„  196)  _  196 
Barnett   v.    Barnett    (27    Ind,    App., 

471) j___   45, 130 

Baugher,   Thomas  W.,  minors  of    (7 

P.  D.,  433) 24,36 

Bean,  Thomas  (7  P.  D.,  527) 270 

Beatrie,     Schmisseur    v.     (147     111., 

210) 19,  45,  445 

Becher,  Joseph  (2  P.  D.,  109) 510 

Belgrade,  Camden  v.   (78  Me.,  204 )_  351 

Bergdall's  Estate  (7  D.  R.,  137  Pa.)  212 

Bertles  v.  Nunan  (92  N.  Y.,  152)  ___  385 
Beverlin    i\    Beverlin    (29    W.    Va., 

723) 38 

Bigelow  on  Estoppel  (p.  508) 108 

Bird,  Daniel   (10  P.  D.,  104) 475 

Bishop    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(see.   513) 248 

Bishop    on    Marriage    and    Divorce 

(sec.   457) 356 

Bishop    on    Marriage,    Divorce,    and 

Separation   (sec,  956) 158 

Bishop,  Frank,  jr,  (8  P.  D.,  459) ___  364 
Blaisdell,    William    (13    P.    D.,    465, 

479) 552 

Blasini  et  al.  v.  The   Succession  of 

Blasini   (30  La,  An.,  1368) .345 

Byers,  Dunlap  v.  (110  Mich.,  109)  __  232 
Byrnes  v.  United  States  (26  Ct.  CI., 

.302) 516 

Byrns  v.   Byrns  (14  P.  D.,  404) 489 

Boeke,  May  E.  (IP.  D.,  427) 89 


to 


76 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


Page. 

Bone,  Wallace  G.  (2  P.  D.,  310) 324 

Borthwick,   Chas.   F.,  alias  Franklin 

Brown  (10  P.  D.,  249) 250,324 

Boston,  Marden  v.   (155  Mass.,  359)  441 

Bowles,  Harvey  E.  (10  P.  D.,  133)  _  515 
Bowman    r.     Bowman     (14     P.     D., 

120) 237,  317,  373 

Boyd,  Melissa  (14  P.  D.,  279) 292 

Bram,  Zerntlien  r.   (100  N.  Y.,  12)  _  386 

Brewster,  Amelia  L.   (7  P.  D.,  296)-  329 

Brice's  Estate  (2  W.  N.  C,  112  Pa.)  212 

Briggs  V.  Briggs  (24  S.  Car.,  377)  __  46 
Briggs,   Davie   v.    (98   U.    S,   Repts., 

535) 444 

Brobst  I'.  Brobst  (13  P.  D.,  218)  __  233,240 
Brogunier,  Elizabeth   (9  P.  D.,  o.  s., 

250) 117 

Bronson,  Hammick  v.  (5  Day,  290) _  470 
Brower  v.  Brower  (1  Abb.,  Ct.  App., 

214) 20,  179 

Brown,    Jones    v.     (2    Ex.    Reports, 

Wellsby,  Hurlstone,  Gordon,  329 )_  35 

Brown  v.  McGee  (12  Bush.,  428)—  475 

Brown,  Minor  v.   (133  N.  Y„  308)  __  386 

Brown,  Eliza  G.   (13  P.  D.,  188)—  106 

Brown,  George  M.  (3  P.  D.,  29) 207 

Brown,  Isaac  I*.,  alias  Albert  B.  Cole 

(14  P.  D.,  375) 468 

Brown,  John  (8  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  60) 507 

Brown,  Minerva  (11  P.  D.,  266) 438 

Bruner,  Bernard   (3  P.  D.,  228) 307 

Buck  V.  Buck  (14  P.  D.,  150) 339 

Budington    v.     Munson     (33    Conn., 

481)    470 

Bullock  V,  Bullock  (122  Mass.,  3)__  466 

Burdette  v.  Burdette  (14  P.  D.,  146)  233 

Burnham,  Cram  v.  (5  Me.,  213) 351 

Burnham,  John  (4  P.  D.,  93) 324 

Burton,  Jennette  (9  P.  D.,  31 )_  19,45,433 

Bush,  Sarah  (9  P.  D.,  144) 380 

Butler,  .Jeremiah   (7  P.  D.,  214) 74,78 

Button    and    Strunk,    Strunk   v.    (14 

P.   D.,   17) 233,240 

C. 

Cady,  W.  S.   (5  P.  D.,  84) 451 

Caldwell,    Davenport    v.    (10    S.    C, 

317)    538 

Calef,   Commonwealth  v.    (10  Mass., 

153)    87 

Calvert,  Floyd  i\   (53  Miss.,  37) 478 

Camden  v.  Belgrade  (78  Me.,  204) __  351 

Campbell,  Mark  G.  (8  P.  D.,  203)  ___  111 
Carpenter    v.    Carpenter    (30    Kans., 

712;   46  Am.  Rep.,  108) 401 

Carpenter,  Alfred  (11  P.  D.,  429)  __  451 

Carter  v.  Carter  (28  Me.,  509) 351 

Cassin,  John  H.  (2  P.  D.,  376) 517 

Cast  V.  Cast  (1  Utah,  112) 102 

Certain.  Bates  T.  (13  P.  D.,  413) ___  83 
Chamberlain   r.   Chamberlain    (74   N. 

Y.,    423) 249 

Chambers,     Simon     P.      (6     P.     D., 

260)    253,  254.  392 

Chandler,  John  M.  (4  P.  D.,  276)  __  308 


Page. 
Charmbnry,  Executors  of,  Powers  v. 

(35  La.  An.,  630) 345 

Chase  v.  Webster  (168  Mass.,  228)  _  440 

Cheever  v.  Wilson  (6  D.  C,  149) 161 

Cheever  v.  Wilson  (76  U.  S.,  123)  __  407 

Chollar,  Caroline  (4  P.  D.,  103) 214 

Christopher  v.  Christopher  (13  P.  D., 

383)    134,340 

Church-Peterson     on     Nervous     and 

Mental  Diseases : 

(p.   391) 544 

(p.   415) 545 

(pp.  421,  422,  423,  424) 545 

Claflin  and  others  v.  Commonwealth 

Ins.  Co.   (110  U.  S.,  81) 34 

Claw,  Jackson  v.   (18  Johns.,  346)  __  249 

Clayton  v.  Wardell  (4  N.  Y.,  230) __  249 
Clement  v.  Riley  (,33  S.  C,  66)  __  538,  539 
Clements,    Isaac,    pension    agent    (5 

P.  D.,  328) 154 

Cleveland,    Hunt    v.    (6    Pa.    C.    C, 

592)    213 

Cleveland,  Andrew  B.  (12  P.  D.,  17)  257 
Clevenger  on  Medical  Jurisprudence 

of  Insanity   (v.  1,  p.  393) 193 

Clive,  W^illiam   (7  P.  D.,  119) 511 

Coal    Run    Company    v.    Jones    (127 

111.,    379) 45 

Coffee,  Flynn  v.  (12  Allen,  133) 441 

Cole  V.  Cole  (153  111.,  585) 45 

Coleman,  William   (8  P.  D.,  450)  ___  229 

Collins,  Jackson  v.  (2  Houston,  128)  528 

Collins,  Amy    (12  P.  D.,  292) 179 

Colvin  V.  Reed   (55  Pa.  State  Reps., 

375)    161,489 

Commonwealth   v.   Calef    (10   Mass., 

153)    87 

Commonwealth    v.    Elwell    (2    Met., 

190)    180 

Commonwealth  v.  Harley   (14  Gray, 

411)    465 

Commonwealth    v.     Ilayden     (1895) 

(163  Mass.,  453) 465 

Commonwealth  v.  Johnson  (10  Allen, 

196)    465 

Commonwealth      v.      Munson      (127 

Mass.,    459) ^ 462 

Commonwealth,   The,   Pruner  t\    (10 

Va.  Law  J.,  520) 247 

Commonwealth     v.     Thompson      (11 

Allen,    23) 441 

Commonwealth  Ins.  Co.,  Claflin  and 

others  v.   (110  U.  S.,  81) 34 

Comstock,  Harriet  (10  P.  D.,  220) _  555,557 

Conover  v.  Conover  (11  V.  D.,  525 )_  369 

Cook  V.  Cook  (114  Mass.,  163) 440 

Cooper  V.  Cooper  (17  Mich.,  502;  97 

Am.  Dec,  182) 54 

Cooper  V.  Cooper  (13  P.  D.,  208) ___  233 

Cotton,  Walton  v.   (19  How.,  355)  __  109 

Cowan,  Franklin  S.   (7  P.  D.,  374)  __  78 

Craig,  Mary  W.   (13  P.  D.,  259)^ 105, 

424,  427 

Craiglow.  Martha  J.  (7  P.  D.,  517)-  329 
Cralle  &  Co.,  J.  B.,  attorneys   (5  P. 

D.,    84) _—  451 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


77 


Page 

Cram  v.  Biirnham  (5  Me.,  213) 351 

Crane,  Joseph  (4  P.  D.,  358) 280 

Croft,  Simon  v.   (182  U.  S.,  427)  ___  474 

Croft,  Sarah  (1  V.  D.,  279) 118 

Cropsey  v.  McKinney   (30  Barb,,  47- 

55)    20,171) 

Crume  i\  Crume  (13  P.  D.,  424-427)  150 

Cummings,  William  n.  (IP.  D.,  351)  118 
Cunningham  v.  Irwin   (7  Sergt.  and 

Rawle,   247) 140 

Cunningham,  Leckey  v.    (56  Pa.  St., 

370)    193 

Curran,  Jno.  W.  (5  P.  D.,  1)__'_ 264 


D. 


Dailey,  Daniel  (4  P.  D.,  337) 308 

Daily  v.  United  States   (17  Ct.  CI., 

144)    110 

Dana,  Diana  M.  (13  P.  D.,  272) 158 

Daniel  v.  Sams  (17  Fla.,  487) 384 

Daniel  v.  Simms  (49  W.  Va.,  554) __  34 

Dasher,  Mary  (14  P.  D.,  257) 393 

Daugherty    v.    Daugherty,    alias    Do- 

herty   (13  P.  D.,  302) 123,140 

Davenport    v.    Caldwell     (10    S.    C, 

317)    538 

Davidson,  Christopher  P.,  v.  United 

States  (21  Ct.  CI.,  298) 2 

Davie  v.   Briggs    (98  U.   S.   Reports, 

535)    444 

Davis  V.  Davis  (2  Den.,  N.  Y.,  549)  _  176 

Davis  V.  Davis  (10  P.  D.,  236) 336 

Davis  V.  Davis  (10  P.  D.,  403) 135 

Davis,  Fox  v.   (113  Mass.,  255) 440 

Davis,  Offield  v.  (40  S.  E.  Rep.,  910)  447 

Davis,  William  N.   (7  P.  D.,  333)—  250, 

253,  392 
Da  ya  ne  Ah  Kee  la  nee  gar  (10  P. 

I).,    146) 200 

Dennis,  Annie  (9  P.  D.,  243) 45 

Dennison  v.  Dennison  (35  Md.,  361)  348 
Derhammer,  Anna  (16  Fee  P.  L,  B., 

362)    274 

Divoll  V.  Leadbetter  (21  Mass.,  220)  471 
Dodge,   Miller   v.    (28   N.    Y.,    Misc., 

238)    179 

Doherty  v.  Doherty  (13  P.  D.,  302 )_  57 
Donnelly    v.    United    States    (17   Ct. 

CI.,    105) 110 

Doolittle  V.  Doolittle  (78  Iowa,  691- 

694)    394 

Drew,  Kelly  v.  (12  Allen,  107) 441 

Dudley,  W.  W.   (6  P.  D.,  208) 62 

Dunlap  V.  Byers  (110  Mich.,  109)  __  232 

Durfey,  Albert  (20  Fee  P.  L.  B.,  436)  229 

Dustin  V.  Dustin  (13  P.  D.,  77) 57, 

123,  139 

Duval,  James  (9  P.  D.,  218) 324 


E. 


Easley,  Daniel  M.   (12  P.  D.,  179)  __  323 

Eastridge,  Mary  E.   (8  P.  D.,  5) 324 

Eispinozer,  State  v.   (20  Nev.,  209)  _  342 

Eldred  v.  Eldred  (97  Va.,  606) 448 


Paga. 
lOldred,     Williamsport     r.     (84     Pa. 

St.,    429) 489 

Ellis  V.  Ellis   (11  P.  D.,  288) 369 

Ellis,  Eliza  J.    (12  P.  D.,  159) 348,446 

Elwell,    Commonwealth    v.    (2    Met., 

190)     180 

Endlich    on    Interpretation    of    Stat- 
utes : 

Sees.  127,  340 110 

Sec.  367 34 

Enfinger,  John   (13  P.  D.,  248) 105,424 

English,  Erwin  v.   (61  Conn.,  602)  __  356 

Erwin  v.  English   (61  Conn.,  602)  __  356 

Eveland,  Daniel  (14  P.  D.,  40) 422 

Eveland,  Eliza  .1.  (14  P.  D.,  141)___  325 

Everett  v.  Morrison   (69  Hun,  146)  _  471 

Everman,  Samuel   (1  P.  D.,  418) 196 

Eureka   (4  Sawyer,  217,  302) 98 

Ewing,  Richard  (8  P.  D.,  44) 2 


F. 


Farrell,    Edward    et    al.    (7    P.    D., 

532)     75,346 

Ferguson,    Eugenie    M.    (387    L.    B., 

438)     97 

BMnley,  William  ai  P.  D.,  410) 2 

Fisher  v.  Fisher   (12  P.  D.,  336)  ___      123, 

139,  387 
Fisher,  Hiles  r.  (144  N.  Y.,  306)  ___  386 
Fishli  V.  Fishli   (2  Litt.  Ky.,  337)—  46 

Fleck,  George  W.   (7  P.  D.,  343) __  393,415 
Fleener,  Andrew  J.  (9  P.  D.,  133) __       308 
Fletcher's  Equity  IMeading  and  Prac- 
tice, pp.  591  and  note  93,  714  and 

note    81 

Floyd  v.  Calvert  (53  Miss.,  37)__- 
Flynn  v.  Coffee  (12  Allen,  133)  __. 
Forbin  v.  Forbin   (13  P.  D.,  120)  _. 


148 
478 
441 
19, 

45,  233,  240 
Foster  v.  Hawley   (8  Hun,  68,72)—       249 

Fox  V.  Davis  (113  Mass.,  255) 440 

Fox  V.  State   (3  Tex.,  329) 180 

Frank,  Samuel  D.   (13  P.  D.,  362)  __       512 
Freeman   on   Judgments    (v.    1,   sec. 

271)    134 

Fritsche,    Caroline    (8   P.    D.,    o.    s., 

196)    24 

Fuller,  Sally  A.   (10  P.  D.,  238) 365 


G. 


Gabriel,  Francoise  (12  P.  D.,  382)  __  345 
Gall  V.  Gall  (114  N.  Y.,  109)—  20,  179,  366 
Garnett  i;.  Garnett  (114  Mass.,  347)  _       440 

Gaskell,  Lucinda  (3  P.  D.,  87) 552 

Geddings,  Esther    (36  Fee  P.  L.   B., 

374)    189 

Gembe,  Mary  (13  P.  D.,  131) 291 

Germain,  Louisa  C.  (11  P.  D.,  66)—  433 
Gibbs,    Hultz    v.     (66    Pa.    St.    Rep. 

360)    161 

Gillespie,  John,  minors  of  (13  P.  D., 

280)     105,  110 

Gilliland,  Mary  J.  (13  P.  D.,  90)___      158, 

357,  433 


78 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


Page. 
Glanbenkslee    v.    Low    (29    111.    Ap., 

408)    295 

Gleason,  John  H.  (2  P.  D.,  106) 325 

Goldenburg,    United    States    r.    (168 

U.   S.,  95) 554 

Graves  v.   Graves    (108  Mass.,  314- 

320)    440 

Graves,    James    R.,    minor    of     (13 

P.  D.,   148) 7,431,434 

Gray,  Alice  (7  P.  D.,  134) _, 88 

Green,    United    States    v.    (98    Fed. 

Rep.,   63) 19,235 

Green,  Ann  (12  P.  D.,  306)___  18,  179,366 
Greenleaf  on  Evidence,  v.  1  : 

Sees.  34,  35 158 

Sec,    41 79,342 

Sec:  48   (n) 76 

Griffin  r.  Banks  (24  How.,  215)___  20,179 
Griffin,  Margaret  (11  P.  D.,  282)  ___       392 

Groft  i\  Groft  (76  Ind.,  136) 413 

Grooms,  Sarali  J.  (7  P.  D.,  207) 88,247 

Grosse  v.  The  City  of  Rochester  (148 

N.  Y.,  235) 386 

Guthrie,  Michael    (40  Fee  P.   L.   B., 

299)    173 


Hackey,  William   (7  1\  D.,  212) 333 

Hallett,  Emma  J.   (13  P.  D.,  31)___  110 

Ham,  Myers  v.   (20  S.  C,  522) 539 

Hammick  v.  Bronson  (5  Day,  290 )_  470 
Hardenberger    v.    Hardenberger    (14 

Cal.,    654) 406 

Hardy,  Calista  M.  (7  P.  D.,  391)___  330 
Harley,  Commonwealth  v.  (14  Qray, 

411) 465 

Harris    v.     Harris     (8    Brad.,    App. 

Rep.,  57) 45 

Harris  v.  Harris  (8  111.  App.,  57)  __  445 

Harris  v.  Harris  (12  P.  D.,  7) 336 

Harrison,    James    E.    (7    P.    D.,    97 ; 

9  P.  D.,  433) 118 

Hasey,  Myrick  v.   (27  Me.,  17) 35 

Hawksley,  James  H.  (6  L.  B.  P.)___  24,32 

Hawley,  Foster  v.  (8  Hun,  68,  72)  __  249 
Hayden,      Commonwealth      v.      (163 

Mass.,    453) 465 

Hayden,  Sarah  C.   (8  P.  D.,  364) _  213,419 

Hayes  v.  Hayes  (13  P.  D.,  212) 387 

Helmer,  Henry  A.  (7  P.  D.,  376)  ___  507 

(9  P.  D.,  130)  ___  118 
Hendee  v.   The   United   States    (124 

U.   S.,  309) 516 

Hendershott     v.     Hendershott      (14 

P.  D.,   130) 401,523 

Hervey,  Parton  v.  (67  Mass.,  119)  __  459 

Hetherington,  Anna  (10  P.  D.,  355)_  326 

Higgins,  Annie  (11  P.  D.,  519) 201 

Hiles  V.  Fisher  (144  N.  Y.,  306) 386 

Hill,  John  J.   (7  P.  D.,  142) 552 

Hitchcock   (2  W.  Va.,  435) 39 

Hogg  1).  Hogg  (13  P.  D.,  206) 474 

Holmes  v.  Holmes   (6  La.,  463) 345 

Horton,  Stephen   (7  P.  D.,  369) 308 

Houston,  Yates  v.  (3  Tex.,  433) 159 


Page. 
Howard,  Harriet  D.  (13  P.  D.,  448)  _  283 
Howell,  Rebecca  C.   (12  1'.  D.,  300)  _        213 

Hoyt,  Birney   (1  P.  1).,  70) 324 

Huber,  Albert  (8  P.  D.,  80) 329 

Huddleston  r.  Askey  (56  Ala.,  218)  _  35 
Hudson  v.  King  (23  111.  App.,  118)  _       295 

Hughes,  Annie  (8  P.  D.,  455) 538 

Hughes,  William  H.  (9  P.  D.,  152) _  427 
Hultz    V.    Gibbs    (66    Pa.    St.    Rep., 

360)    161 

Human,    Jefferson    M.     (12    P.    D., 

500)     76,255,285,392 

Hunfs  Appeal  (86  Pa.  St.,  294)__  213,419 
Hunt  V.  Cleveland  (6  Pa.  C.  C,  592) _       213 

Hunt,  Lucy    (9  P.  D.,  160) 480 

Hunter  v.  Hunter  (14  P.  D.,  136)  __      234, 

385,  387,  404 
Huntingdon,    Teere    et    al.    v.     (22 

How.,    2) 342 

Hutchins    v.     Kimmell     (13     Mich., 

126)    555 

Hyatt  V.  Hyatt  (14  P.  D.,  8) 120, 

128,  240,  370 
Hyatt,  Frederick  W.  (14  P.  D.,  367)_  482 
Hynes    v.     McDermott     (91     N.     Y., 

451)    249 


Illingworth  v.  Bailey    (33  111.  App., 

394)    295 

Indiana,       Adjutant-General's       Re- 
ports  (v.  1,  p.  74) 382 

Inhabitants  of  Twining,   King  v.    (2 

B.  and  Aid.,   386) 356 

Instructions     to     Commissioner     of 
Pensions  : 

(7  P.  D.,  240) 74 

(9:    93) 435 

(10:    465) 24 

Irwin,  Cunningham  v.   (7  Sergt.  and 

Rowle,    247) 140 


Jackson  v.  Claw   (18  Johns.,  346) __  249 

Jackson  t\  Collins  (2  Houston,  128)_  528 

Jackson  v.  Jackson   (80  Md.,  176) __  533 

Jackson  v.  King  (4  Cowen,  207) 193 

Jackson   v.   Van   Dusen    (5   Johnson, 

144) 193 

Jacob,  George  (7  P.  D.,  39) 70 

Jacobson  v.  Miller  (41  Mich.,  90)___  232 

Jenkins,  Newman  t\  (10  Pick.,  515)_  441 

Johns,  Wm.  B.   (2  P.  D.,  393) 327 

Johnson,   Commonwealth   v.    (10  Al- 
len, 196) 465 

Johnson  v.  Johnson  (114  111.,  611)_  45,444 

Johnson  v.  Johnson  (1  Cold.,  626) 471 

Johnson  v.  Johnson  (45  Mo.,  595) __  492 

Johnson,  George   (13  P.  D.,  46) 393 

Johnson,  Gus  (8  P.  D.,  463) 474,476 

Jones    V.     Brown     (2     Ex.    Reports, 

Wellsby,  Hurlstone,  Gordon,  329)  _  35 
Jones,   Coal   Run   Company   v.    (127 

111.,  379) 45 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


79 


Page. 

Jones  V.  Zoller  (29  Hun.,  551) 20,179 

Jones,   Moses   G.    (39   Fee  P.   L.   B., 

251) 229 

Joyce,  Olivia  (7  P.  D.,  157) 274 


Kelley,  James  H.  (14  P.  D.,  104)  ___  423 

Kelly  V.  Drew  (12  Allen,  107)—'—  441 

Kelly  V.  Kelly   (18  Nev.,  49) 402 

Kendall  v.  Kendall  (14  P.  D.,  159)  _   407,  489 

Kennedy  v.  Kennedy  (87  111.,  250)--  150 
Kent,  Fredericka  (10  P.  D.,  211)—  77,429 

Kenyon  r.  People  (26  N.  Y.,  203)—  343 

Kilbee,  Rebecca  (10  P.  D.,  286) 88 

Kilburn,  Williams  v.  (88  Mich.,  279)  555 
Kilmer  v.  Kilmer  (13  P.  D.,  270) _  372,482 

Kimball,  \yilliams  v.  (35  Fla.,  49)—  384 
Kimmell,     Hutchins    v.     (13    Mich., 

126) 555 

King's  Estate  (9  Kulp.,  54) 212 

King,  Hudson  v.  (23  111.  Ap.,  118)—  295 
King   V.   Inhabitants  of  Twining    (2 

B.  and  Aid.,  386) 356 

King,  Jackson  v.  (4  Cowen,  207)—  193 

King,  Turner  v.   (98  Ky.,  253) 342 

Kite,  Alfred   (9  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  232) _—  325 

Klein  v.  Laudman  (29  Mo.,  259)—  501 

Knoop,  C.  F.   (8  P.  D.,  435) 153 

Knowles,    Northrop    v.     (52    Conn., 

522) 470 

Knox  V.  Moore  (41  S.  C,  355) 539 

Koch,  United  States  v.  (21  Fed.  Rep., 

873) 135 

Krause,  Anna  S.  (3  P.  D.,  243) 118 


L. 


Lake,  Louis  S.,  widow  of   (2  P.  D., 

Ill) 325 

Lamb,  John  E.   (8  P.  D.,  191) 70 

La  Mountain,  John  (11  P.  D.,  395)  _  153 

Larned,  Charles  H.   (7  P.  D.,  162)—  330 

Laudman,  Klein  v.  (29  Mo.,  259) 501 

Lawley,  Lewis  (14  P.  D.,  13) 297,299 

Lawrence  v.  Nelson  (85  N,  W.  Rep., 

84) ^ 110 

Lea  V.  Lea  (99  Mass.,  493)' 130,  134 

Leadbetter,  Divoll  v.  (21  Mass.,  220)  471 
Leckey  v.   Cunningham    (56  Pa.   St., 

370) 193 

Lee,  William  G.   (6  P.  D.,  149) 421 

Leigh  ton,  Catharine  S.  (7  P.  D.,  88)-  329 

Leslie,  Helen  M.   (6  P.  D.,  255) 327 

Lester,  Mary  N.   (12  P.  D.,  340)—   178,366 

Limoges,  Adolphus  (9  P.  D.,  274)—  508 
Livengood   v.    Livengood    (13   P.   D., 

134) 316 

Lockard  v.  Lockard  (14  P.  D.,  45)-   130,  1.34 

Lockhart  v.  White   (18  Tex.,  102)—  159 

Loring  v.  Steineman   (1  Met.,  204)-  441 

Loririg  V.  Thorndike  (5  Allen,  257 )_  460 

Lott,  Catherine  (5  P.  D..  382) .333 

Loughry  v.  Loughry  (11  P.  D.,  523)-  370 

Lovel.  Jesse  (3  P.  D.,  187) 308 


Page. 
Low,    Glanbensklee   v.    (29   III.   Ap., 

408) 295 

Lowe,  White  r.   (1  Redf.,  376) 20,179 

Luckingbeal,  Judith  S.  (9  P.  D.,  42)_  435 

Lynch  v.  Lynch  (13  P.  D.,  447) 233 

Lynch,  G.  W.   (14  P.  D.,  155) 287 

M. 

McCabe,  Rosalinda  (5  L.  B.  P.,  273)-  117 
McCutchen  v.  McGahay  (11  Johnson 

281) 140 

McDermott,    Hynes    v.     (91    N.    Y., 

451) 249 

McElroy,    Alexander    P.     (9    P.    D., 

401) 526 

McGahay,   McCutchen   v.    (11   John- 
son, 281) 140 

McGee,  Brown  v.   (12  Bush.,  428)—  475 

McKee,  Thos.  W.  (6  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  83)  -_  507 
McKinney,    Cropsey    v.     (30    Barb., 

47) 20, 179 

McNealy,  Henrietta  J.  (14  Fee  P.  L. 

B.,  62) 189 

McNeil,  Mary  E.  (3  P.  D.,  26) 507 

McPherson,  William  J.  (5  P.  D.,  o.  s., 

47) 82,  507 

Mahone   v.    Mahone    (19   Cal.,   626; 

81  Am.  Dec,  91) 54 

Mangue  v.  Mangue  (1  Mass.,  240) 457 

Marden   v.  Boston  (155  Mass.,  359)—  441 

Markwood,  Robert  (11  P.  D.,  380)—  40, 

155,  420 

Marshall,  James  M.  (8  P.  D.,  395) __  324 
Marsteller,  Jas.  F.,  minor  of  (11  P. 

D.,  55) 118 

Martin  v.  Martin  (13  P.  D.,  430) -__  55, 

193,  403 

Martin,  Jackson  (7  P.  D.,  265) 324 

Marvin,  State  v.    (12  Iowa,  499)—  87,246 

Mason  v.  Mason   (101  Ind.,  25) 471 

Mason,  Harrison  H.   (4  P.  D.,  244 )_  511 

Mathews,  ex  parte  (22  Ala.,  51) 34 

Mavlty,  John  H.,  Ctf.   152,141   (vol. 

446  P.  L.   B.,  404) 270 

Medley  v.  Medley  (12  P.  D.,  490)—  316 

Meese,  Oscar   (5  P.  D.,  122) 135 

Meister  v.  Moore  (96  U.  S.,  76,  78)-   449,  460 

Melvin,  Daniel  V.  (8  P.  D.,  89) 118 

Mendon,  Rutland  v.   (1  Pick.,  155)—  34 

Mercer  v.  Mercer  (114  Ind.,  558) 47 

Meyers  v.  Pope  (110  Mass.,  314)_  461,464 
Milbourn,    Chalkley,    alias   T.    C.    (2 

P.  D.,  36) ^ 208 

Mllford  V.  Worcester  (7  Mass.,  48) _  458, 

460,  463 
Miller    v.    Dodge    (28    N.    Y.,    Misc., 

238) 179 

Miller,  Jacobson  v.   (41  Mich.,  90)  __  232 

Miller,  State  v.  (3  Pennewlll,  518) __  528 

Miller,  Christian  (4  P.  D.,  351) 511 

Miller,  Joslah  C.    (27  Fee  P.  L.  B., 

382) 229 

Miner,  Lydla  A.  (8  P.  D.,  104) 136 

Minor  V.  Brown  (133  N.  Y.,  308)—  386 

Minor,  Susan  M.  (8  P.  D.,  263) 427 


80 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


I'age. 
Mitchell  r.  United  States   (88  U.  S., 

352) 407 

MoCfatt  V.  Moffatt  (5  Cal.,  281)_^_-  406 

Mohrstadt,  Jolin  C.  (8  P.  D.,  413)—  8 
Monroe,    Elizabeth    (3    P.    D.,   o.    s., 

282) 449 

Montgomery,  Rudolph  M.,    (3  P.  D., 

41) 307 

Moore,  Knox  v.  (41  S.  C,  355) 539 

Moore,  Meister  v.  (96  U.  S.,  76)—  449,460 
Moore,  United   States  v.    (95   U.   S., 

760,    763) ^ 98 

Moore,  William   (12  P.  D.,  87) 171 

Moors  V.  Moors  (121  Mass.,  232)— _  440 
Morris  v.   Morris    (14   Cal.,   76;     73 

Am.  Dec,  615) 54 

Morris,  John  W.  (2  P.  D.,  73) 364 

Morrison,  Everett  v.  (69  Hun,  146) _  471 
Mouat    V.    The    United    States    (124 

U.   S.,  303) 516 

Mulick,  John  G.  (12  P.  D.,  186) 79 

Munson,    Budington    v.     (33    Conn., 

481)    470 

Munson,      Commonwealth     v.      (127 

Mass.,  459)    462 

Murphey,  James    (42   Fee   P.    L.   B., 

353)    229 

Myers  v.  Ham  (20  S.  C,  522) 539 

Myrick  v.  Hasey  (27  Me.,  17) o5 


N. 


Nelson,  Lawrence  v.  (85  N.  W.  Rep., 

84)    110 

Newman  v.  Jenkins  (10  Pick.,  515)  _  441 

Newman,  Henry   (8  P.  D.,  532) 118 

Newman,  Robert  (6  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  228)  117 

Newton  v.  South  worth  (7  N.  Y.,  130)  248 
Nicholas,    Mary,    widow    of    Francis 

Wallace    (13  P.  D.,  286) 110 

Nichols,  Betty  F.  (13  P.  D.,  330)—  76,346 

Nix,  Jacob  (4  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  260) 250 

Nook,  Samuel   (8  P.  D.,  367) 552 

North,  United  States  v.   (112  U.  S., 

510)    327 

Northey,  Snow  v.  (19  L.  D.,  493)—  196 
Northrop     v.     Knowles     (52     Conn., 

522) 470 

Norton,  John   (9  P.  D.,  382) 326 

Nunan,  Bertles  v.  (92  N.  Y.,  152)  __  385 
My  land,  Cornelia  A.   (3  P.  D.,  o.  s., 

256)    24,33 


O. 


Offield  V.  Davis  (40  S.  E.  Rep.,  910)  _  447 
Ollendorf,  Louis,  minors  of  (8  P.  D., 

272)    200 

Ott,  Catherine  (4  P.  D.,  47) 118 


P. 


Parcell,  Catherine  (13  P.  D.,  450)—         63 
Parker  v,  Parker  (13  P.  D.,  233)— _        57. 

123,  136,  140 
Parker,  State  v.  (96  Mo.,  383) 342 


Page. 

Parker,  Mary  E.  (11  P.  D.,  103) 118 

Palmer,  Adams  v.  (51  Me.,  480) 351 

I'arton  r.  Hervey   (67  Mass.,  119) 459 

Passons,  Andrew  J.  (8  P.  D.,  416) __       105 
I'ayne,    Wilkinson    r.     (4    Term    R., 

468)    471 

Peet  V.  Peet   (52  Mich.,  464) 555 

Pegram,  Rundle  v.  (49  Miss.,  751)  __       47S 
People,  Kenyon  v.   (26  N.  Y.,  203)—        343 

People,  Searles  v.   (13  111.,  597) 87 

People  r.  Baker   (76  N.  Y.,  78) 176 

Perkins,  Harvey  (13  P.  D.,  414) 429. 

431,  434 
Peterson,  Daniel  G.  (13  P.  D.,  144)  _  380 
Pettit,  William  F.  (8  P.  D.,  306)— _  333 
Phipps,    Eli,    minors    of    (8    P.    D., 

Ill)    24,36 

Physick's  Estate   (2  Brewst.,  179)—       212 

Pick  V.  Pick  (13  P.  D.,  299) 337 

Pierce  v.  Pierce  (12  P.  D.,  412) 57, 

123,  139,  162,  406 
Pierson,   Allen   B.,   minor  of    (13   P. 

D.,    151)     7,430,434 

Pinkey  v.  Pinkey  (4  Green,  324) 394 

I'ension    Agent    Clements    (5    I'.    D., 

328)    154 

Plount,  Edward  (13  P.  D.,  541)__  429,434 
Poor  V.  Poor  (8  N.  H.,  307  ;  29  Am. 

Dec,  664-670)    54 

Pope,  Meyers  v.  (110  Mass.,  314).  461,464 
Porritt   V.    Porritt    (18    Mich.,    420- 

424)    134 

Potter  V.  Ranlett   (116  Mich.,  454 )_       233 
Potter's    DWarris    on    Statutes    and 

Constitutions,   144 526 

Potter,  Joseph  M.  (3  P.  D.,  82) 307 

Potts-Gallaudet,  Nervous  and  Mental 

Diseases  : 

(p.  225) 544 

(p.    426,430)     546 

Powers  V.  Executors  of  Charmbury 

(35  La.  Ann.,  630) 345 

Protector,  The    (12  Wall.,   700) 78 

Pruitt,  John  (9  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  295)—-       118 
Pruner    v.    The    Commonwealth    (10 

Va.    Law   J.,   520) 247 

Pulver,    Jonas    W.,    minors    of    (10 

P.  D.,  227) 429,434 


R. 


Randall  v.  Randall  (13  P.  D.,  411 )_  122 
Ranlett,  Potter  r.   (116  Mich.,  454).       233 

Rathton,  Nancy   (9  P.  D.,   162) 259, 

263,  393 
Rebenstorf,    Christenia,    gdn.    minor 

of  John   (15  P.  D.) 434 

Redgrave  v.  Redgrave  (38  Md.,  97) _       349 

Reed,  ex  parte  (100  U.  S.,  13) 516 

Reed,  Colvin  v.  (55  Pa.  St.,  375) _   161,489 

Rich,  Mollie  (4  P.  D.,  234) 500 

Richards  v.  Richards  (11  P.  D.,  90 )_  372,  482 
Richardson  v.  Smith  (80  Md.,  189) _  532 
Richardson,  Martin  V.  B.    (1  P.  D., 

373)    511,514 

Riley,  Clement  v.  (33  S.  C,  66)—  538,539 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


81 


Page. 
Robinson,  John  S.  (11  P.  D.,  390)  __  393 
Rochester,    The    City    of    Grosse    v. 

(148  N.  Y.,  235) 386 

Rothery    v.    Rothery    (11    P.    D.,    77, 

377)    45,  55,  130,  134 

Rothery,  Henry  N.  (11  P.  D.,  255 )_  372,  482 

Ruch,  Louis  (1  P.  D.,  390) 325 

Rudd  V.   Rudd  (33  Mich.,  101) 134 

Ruddick,  Lindley  (10  P.  D.,  217)—  118 
Rumsey,  Hannah  A.  (14  P.  D.,  290)  _  455 
Rundle  v.  Pegram  (49  Miss.,  751 )__  478 
Rutland  v.  Mendon   (1  Picli.,  155)—         34 

S. 

Sams,  Daniel  v.    (17  Fla.,  487) 384 

Sanders,  Emma  C.  (11  P.  D.,  114)_  460,464 
Sargent    v.    Sargent    (36   N.    J.    Eq., 

644)    46 

Schmisseur     v.     Beatrie     (147     111., 

210)     19,45,445 

Schreve,  Theresia  (9  P.  D.,  78)  __  497,502 

Sconey,  James    (1  P.  D.,  272) 325 

Seaman,  Benj.  W.  (9  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  8)_       117 

Searles  v.  People  (13  HI.,  597) 87 

Sell,  Isaac   (2  P.  D.,  177) 324 

Semple  v.  United  States  (24  Ct.  CI., 

422)    110 

Shafifer,  James  (5  P.  D.,  6) 307 

Shannon,  Andrew  J.  (7  P.  D.,  64) __  515 
Sharkey  v.  Sharkey  (13  P.  D.,  297)  _  45 
Sheldon  v.  Sheldon  (13  P.  D.,  542)  _  152,  473 
Sherman   v.  Sherman  (13  P.  D.,  203)-      123, 

139,  317 
Shores  r.  Shores  (23  Ind.,  546)— _  47,413 

Siler,  Isabel  W.   (10  P.  D.,  1) 19,45 

Silman,  James  D.   (12  P.  D.,  431)—       118 

Simon  v.  Croft  (182  U.  S.,  427) 474 

Simms,  Daniel  v.  (49  W.  Va.,  554) __  34 
Simpson,  Darwin  C.  (8  P.  D.,  311 )_  173 
Smith,  Richardson  r.  (80  Md.,  189)  _  532 
Smith  V.  Smith  (55  N.  J.  Eq.,  222) _  46 

Smith,    Charles    (28    Fee    P.    L.    B., 

419)    275 

Smith,  Robert  A.  (12  P.  D.,  141)— _  118 
Snow  r.  Northey   (19  P.  D.,  493)—        196 

Sousa,  Elizabeth   (12  P.  D.,  166) 2,225 

Southwick  V.   Southwick    (97   Mass., 

327;  93  Am.  Dec,  95) 54 

Southworth,    Newton    v.     (7    N.    Y. 

State,    130) 248 

Sparhark   v.    Sparhawk    (114    Mass., 

355)    440 

Spencer,  John   (7  P.  D.,  152) 2 

Spencer,    Letitia    C.    A.    (13    P.    D., 

68)    497,500 

Spinney,  Willard  (7  P.  D.,  335) 118 

Staiger's  estate  (7  D.  R.,  351) 212 

Stakes,  Geo.  H.   (4  P.  D.,  158) 308 

State,    Andre    v.    (5    Iowa,    389;  68 

Am.  Dec,  708) 342 

State  V.  Eispinozer  (20  Nev.,  209)—       342 

State,  Fox  v.   (3  Tex.,  329) 180 

State  r.  Marvin  (12  Iowa,  499)  ___  87,246 
State  V.  Miller  (3  Pennewill,  518)—  528 
State  V.  Parker  (96  Mo.,  383) 342 

13070—06 6 


Page. 
State,    Swartz    v.     (13    Ohio    C.    C. 

Rep.)    430 

State  V.  Swope  (11  Ind.,  91) 34 

State  V.  Wetherby   (43  Me.,  258) 351 

State  V.  Whalley  (10  S.  C,  500)  __ _  539 

Steineman,  Loring  v.   (1  Met.,  204 )_  441 

Stevenson,  Susan  (3  P.  D.,  171) 118 

Stewart  on  Marriage  and  Divorce  : 

Sec    125 158 

Sec   257 134 

Sec.  259  and  n.  13,  p.  7 524 

Sec   345 158 

Still,  James  (12  P.  D.,  25) 7,431,434 

Stockbridge,  pet.  (145  Mass.,  517)—  441 

Strong,  in  re  (86  Hun,  N.  Y.,  390) _  176 
Strunk  v.  Button  and  Strunk  (14  P. 

D.,    17) 179,233,240 

Sutherland    on    Statutory    Construc- 
tion : 

Sec.   218 98 

Sec   234 113 

Sec   237 88 

Sec   240 109 

Sec   253 88 

Sec   272 108 

Sees.  283,  288 41 

Sees.  307,  309 97 

Sec   325 108 

Sees.  368,  398,  399 110 

Sec   420 34 

Sutton,   Alexander,   minor  sisters  of 

(8  P.  D.,  137) 489 

Swann,  Margaret  M.  (8  P.  D.,  149)  _  410 
Swartz  V.  State  (13  Ohio  C.  C.  Rep., 

62)    430 

Swope,  State  v,   (11  Ind.,  91) 34 

T. 

Tallman,  Evelyn  S.  (6  P.  D.,  261)—  327 
Taylor  v.   Taylor    (25   N.   Y.,   Misc., 

566)    20,  179 

Taylor,  David  (16  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  246)  _  273 

Teberg,  Peter  J.   (8  P.  D.,  224) 229 

Teere  et  al.  v.  Huntingdon  (22  How., 

2)    342 

Teller  v.  United  States   (107  U.  S., 

64)    110 

Thomas,  Peggy  (13  P.  D.,  98)—   20,  24,  179 
Thompson  v.  Thompson   (114  Mass., 

566)    462,466 

Thomson,     Commonwealth     v.      (11 

Allen,   23) 441 

Thorn,  Graham  (14  P.  D.,  249) 392 

Thorndike,  Loring  v.  (5  Allen,  257) _  460 
Toller,  William,  minors  of  (7  P.  D., 

545) 289 

Tomson  v.  Ward   (1  N.  II.,  12) 35 

Treatise    on    Practice,    Pension    Bu- 
reau : 

Par.  5,  p.  79 2 

Pars.  7,  8,  p.  85 152 

Trickey,   Hartwell,   minors  of    (8  P. 

D.,    84) 333 

Trimble,  Sarah,  mother  of  George  (7 

P.  D„  o.  s.,  303) 267,260 


82 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Page. 

Trout,  John  R.  (11  P.  D.,  435) 263 

Truce,  Joab  (3  P.  I).,  14) 208 

Tunison,  Matilda  C.   (11  P.  D.,  440)  284 

Turner  r.  King  (98  Ky.,  253) 342 

Turner,  Isaac  (7  P.  D.,  523) 70 

Tuttle,  Josiali  T.   (3  P.  D.,  52) 552 

Tuttle,  Samuel  (11  P.  D.,  278) 348 

Tuxbury's  appeal   (67  Me.,  267) 34 

U. 

United   States,   Alexander   v.    (4   Ct. 

CI.,    218) 34,110,111 

United  States,  Byrnes  v.  (26  Ct.  CI., 

302)    516 

United  States,  Daily  v.    (17  Ct.  CI., 

144)    110 

United   States,   Davidson   v.    (21   Ct. 

CI.,    208) 2 

United    States,   Donnelly   v.    (17   Ct. 

CI.,    105) 110 

United    States    v.    Goldenburg    (168 

U.   S.,  95) 554 

United    States    v.    Green     (98    Fed. 

Rep.,    63) 19,235 

United  States,  Hendee  v.  (124  U.  S., 

309)    516 

United  States  v.  Kocli  (21  Fed.  Rep., 

873)    135 

United  States,  Mitchell  v.  (88  U.  S., 

352)    407 

United   States   v.    Moore    (95   U.    S., 

760,    763) 98 

United  States,  Mouat  v.   (124  U.  S., 

303)    516 

United  States  v.  North    (112  U.  S., 

510)    327 

United  States,  Semple  t?.-  (24  Ct.  CI., 

422)    110 

United  States,  Teller  v.   (107  U.  S., 

64)    110 

V. 

Valleau  v.  Valleau  (6  Paige,  207) _  20,179 
Valentine,    Barker    v.     (125    Mich., 

336)    555 

Van    Dusen,    Jackson     (5    Johnson, 

144)    193 

Van   Houten  v.   Van  Houten    (12  P. 

D.,  157) 370 

Veach,  William  H.  (12  P.  D.,  273) __  393 

Viles,  Mahala  (12  P.  D.,  468) 438 

W. 

Waddingham    v.    Waddingham     (21 

Mo.  Ap.,  609) 501 

Wales  V.  Wales  (119  Mass.,  89) 440 

Wallace,    Francis,   widow   of    (13   P. 

D.,    286) 110 

Wallace,  John  C.    (33  Fee  P.  L.  B., 

13)    229 

Walton  t'.  Cotton  (19  How.,  355 )_   109,  110 

Ward,  Tomson  v.  (1  N.  H.,  12) 35 

Warden,  Clayton  v.  (4  N.  Y.,  230)  __  249 
Wardwell    v.    Wardwell    (14    P.    D.,     " 


Tajje 
234)    522 

Warner  v.  Warner   (54  Mich.,  492) _        55, 

130,  134 

Warner,  Rachel   (12  P.  D.,  266) 361 

Washington,  Patsey  (8  P.  D.,  362 )_  537 
Waters,  Catherine  (9  P.  D.,  206)  ___  .495 
Watkins,  Julia  A.  E.   (10  P.  D.,  202,  • 

208)    552 

Watson,  John  T.   (12  P.  D.,  92) 171 

Watt,  Anderson  v.  (138  U.  S.,  706)  _  406 
Webster,  Chase  r.  (168  Mass.,  22S)__     440 

Weddle,  John  R.  (2  P.  D.,  97) 511 

Welsh,  William  (4  P.  D..  279) 507 

Wetherby,  State  v.  (43  Me.,  258)  ___       351 
Whalley,  State  v.  (10  S.  C,  500)  ___       539 
Wharton  on  Evidence,  vol.  2,  sec.    812       193 
sec.  1245       158 
sec.  1284  79 

Wharton  and»Stille's  Medical  Juris- 
prudence : 

Vol.  1,  sec.  249 193 

3:892    (p.   731) 552 

Wheeler  r.  Wheeler  (52  Iowa,  511 )_  402 
White,  Lockart  v.  (18  Tex.,  102)  ___       159 

White  i\  Lowe   (Redf.,  376) 20, 

179,  376 
White  r.  White  (105  Mass.,  327)—       180 

White,  Simeon  (2  P.  D.,  210) 325 

Whitehead,  Malvin  B.  (7  P.  D.,  427)  329 
Whitney  v.  Whitney  (11  P.  D.,  301)         50, 

130,  134 
Wilds,  William  W.  (11  P.  D.,  95)__-       550 

Wiley,  Rebecca   (10  P.  D.,  304) 533 

Wilkinson    t\    I'ayne     (4    Term    R., 

468) 471 

Williams  v.  Kilburn  (88  Mich.,  279)  555 
Williams  r.  Kimball  (35  Fla.,  49) __  384 
Williams  r.  Williams  (46  Wis.,  464)  19 

Williams.  Joseph  C.  (7  P.  D.,  218) __  198 
Williamsport  v.  Eldred    (84   Pa.   St., 

429,  432) 161,  489 

Willie  V.  Willie  (14  P.  D.,  43) 240 

Wilson,  Cheever  v.  (6  D.  C,  149)—  161 
Wilson,  Cheever  r.  (76  U.  S.,  123) __  407 
Wilson,  Joseph  I'.  (11  P.  D.,  308)  __  153 
Wilson,  Mary  A.   (0  P.  D.,  222)___  82,  5<>7 

Wilson,  Minna  (11  P.  D.,  339) 24 

Wilson,  William   (10  P.  D.,  232)  ___      155, 

287,  324 
Winkler,  Anna  M.  (11  P.  D.,  241 )__  425 
Winkler,  Zachariah  (9  P.  D.,  172)  287,  421 
Worcester,  Milford  v.  (7  Mass.,  48).      458, 

460,  463 
Worrell,  Benjamin  F.  (6  P.  D.,  o.  s., 

309) 117 

Wykoflf,  George  E.  (9  P.  D.,  52) 118 

Y. 

Yant,  John  (1  P.  D.,  118) 118 

Yates  V.  Houston   (3  Tex.,  433) 159 

Z. 

Zerntlien  r.  Bram  (100  N.  Y.,  12)—  386 
Zimmerman,  Sarah  L.  (8  P.  D.,  429)  333 
Zoller,  Jones  v.  (29  Hun,  551) 20,179 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.      _  i  i    T ? 

X    ^  or  THE 
LAWS  CITED  AND  CONSTRUED.  |    UNIVERSITY 

United  States  Statutes  at  Large. 


1847, 
1S55, 


1SC2, 


1864, 
1865, 
1866, 

186-:;, 

1866, 
1867, 
1868, 


1872, 
1873, 
1874, 

1878, 

1878, 

1870, 
1 871), 


1880, 
188L', 
1882, 


Page. 

February  11,  succession 415 

March  3,  evidence,  act  of  Janu- 
ary 20,  1887 350 

July  14  : 

Enlistment,  service 71 

Minors    ^--  28 

July  4,  limitation 29 

March  3,  minors,   limitation  __  29 
June    6,    minors    deserted     l)y 

widow 20 

June  6,  rerating 216 

July  25,  increase  to  minors 20 

March  2,  Division  of  Pension-  1 
July  27  : 

Minors,  five  years'  limitation  29 

stepchildren 29 

Widow,    restoration 194 

June   4,    rating 185 

March  3,   minor,  limitation 27 

June    18,     rate,    act   March    4, 

1800 211 

March  3,  minors,  limitation  re- 
moved    30 

June    17,    total    disability    of 

both   feet 524 

January   25,   arrears 30 

March  3  : 

Minors,  limitation 24, 

30,  31,  33,  400 

section   4702 35 

June  16,  increase 211 

August  7,  desertion,  removal —  196 
August  7,  widows  and  minors  : 
Adulterous  cohabitation — 

Admissions    84 

Evidence     242 

Reputation,    estoppel 469 

Restoration,  act  March   3, 

1901 ^ 362 

Special  examiners  conduct  210 
Marriage — 

Age 554 

California   laws 265 

Cohabitation  and  repute —  417, 
445,  456,  476 

Connecticut   laws 355 

Delaware    laws 527 

Divorce — 

Act  March  3,  1800 43 

Act  March  3,  1901___  438,452 

Decree,  jurisdiction    173, 

•     279, 452 

limitation 265 

nisi    438 

of   nullity  —  -     265,  290 

record   of 535 

res  judicata 146 

Utah,      jurisdiction      of 

probate  courts 99 

Estoppel     438 


Page. 

1882,  August  7,  widows  and  minors — 
Continued. 

Marriage — Continued. 

Evidence    17, 

21,  156,  212,  290,  349, 
355,  365,  417,  428,  438,  442, 
456,  491,  530,  535,  537,  554 

Florida  laws,  slaves 383 

Illinois   laws 442 

Impediment    21,  38, 

212,  242,    310,  340,  355, 
365,    417,  428,  403,  554 

Kentucky  laws,  slaves 474 

Louisiana    laws 21,  344 

Legitimacy 428,  474 

Maine   laws 349 

Maryland   laws 347,  530 

Massachusetts  laws 438,  456 

Michigan    laws 417,554 

Mississippi  laws,  colored  _       476 

Missouri    laws 491,  497 

New   York   laws 173,  365 

Ohio  laws 428 

Pennsylvania    laws 212,  417 

I'resumption    56,497,530 

Presumption  of  death__   438,442 
South  Carolina  laws,  slaves       537 

Tennessee    laws ■'       438 

Texas    laws,    colored 156 

Utah   laws,   divorce 99 

Virginia     laws 446 

Washington     laws 535 

West    Virginia    laws 38 

Widows   title,  act  of  June 

27,     1890 347 

1883,  March  3,   increase 184 

1883,  March  3  : 

I'ayment  to  wife,  child,  or 

parent    3 

Soldiers'  Home,  Washing- 
ton,   D.    C 3 

1884,  July  4  : 

Attorneys,  recognition 187 

Fee,  agreement,  widow  and 

minor   200 

1884,  July  5  : 

Desertion,  removal 196 

Faithful  service,  joint  reso- 
lution of  July   1,   1002__        502 

1885,  March  3,  contract  surgeons 516 

1886,  March   19,  service,   marriage- _         95 
1886,  May  17,  desertion,  removal 196 

1886,  August  4  : 

Amputation,  rate 264 

Increase,    rerating 183,  215 

1887,  January  29 : 

Arrears,     act     of    January 

5,  1893 155 

Commencement 40 

Contract  surgeons 517 


84 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Page. 
.1887,  January  29— Continued. 

Discharge   evidence    197 

Gray's  battalion 285,420 

Honorable  discharge,  special 

act    195 

Service,  teamster 357 

1888,  June     7,     limitation     removed, 

widows     30 

1888,  August  14,  desertion,  removal-       196 
1899,  March  2  : 

Desertion,    removal    196 

Volunteers,  act  June  27, 
1890,  constructive  dis- 
charge           326 

1890,  March  4,  Aid  and  attendance, 

commencement    209 

1890,  June  27  : 

Adulterous  cohabitation 84 

Attorneys — 

Election 269 

Fee,  renewal,  increase.       256 

Recognition     2«9 

Service 228 

Contract  surgeons   515 

Declaration — 

Amendment 434 

Practice 426 

Dependent    parents 271, 294 

Desertion,  removal,  joint 
resolution     of     July     1, 

1902 502 

Discharge — 

Honorable,  pardon 352 

Record    249 

Without  lionor 283,413 

Drafted  man 63 

Fraud  and  mistake 57 

Increase,    commencement —         69 
Joint     resolution     July     1, 
1902— 

Bounty  or  gratuity  _  380,  466 
Disloyalty,  death  prior 

to  removal  of  bar_   104,  422 

Fee  276 

Pardon 352 

Service,   last  contract-       552 
Limitation,   commencement, 
orphan  brothers  and  sis- 
ters         490 

Marriage,  see  1882,  August 
7,  marriage. 

Medical    examinations 450 

Minors — 

Commencement 7 

Declaration 7 

Title,     independent    of 

mother     431 

Presumption  of  death,  evi- 
dence     , 442 

Special  act,  helpless  minor.       331 

Reimbursement 57 

Service — 

Evidence,  drafted  man_         63 

Leave  __ 257 

Muster 249 

Presumption    262 

Record    249,388 


Page. 

1890,  June  27 — Continued. 

Termination   of  war  of  re- 
bellion     71,326,346 

Vicious    habits    57 

1891,  March  3,  Powell's  battalion.  287,  420 

1892,  July  27  : 

Service — 

Evidence    296,408 

Length       of      service, 

travel    pay    494 

Limitations 13 

1893,  January  5 : 

Increase — 

Commencement 41, 155 

Cray's     battalion.--  285,  420 
1893,  December    21,    vested    right...       110, 

31»,  408 
1895,     March     2,     accrued     pension, 

joint  resolution,   1002 105 

1897,  February     5,    Gray's    battal- 
ion     285,420 

1898,  May    4,    navy    pensions,    divi- 
sion  of   pension 2 

1899,  March  3  : 

Appeal,  practice 472 

Attorneyship 130 

Burden  of  proof 17 

Character    177,  340 

Desertion    10,  45, 

130,  146,  159,  191,  230, 
394,  404,  481,  489,  521 

Evidence,    reopening 334 

Insanity    191 

Laches   120,  127 

Marriage  and  divorce 17, 

43,  230,  235,  483,  521 
Divorce,      decree,      res 

judicata 146 

Naval   Home 1 

Practice  ._„  8,  127,  235,  313,  472 

Reimbursement 367,  482 

Special    examination 338,  483 

Special  examiners.' 150 

1900,  April    23,    increase,    Mexican 

war . 40,288,420 

1900,  May  » : 

Dependence   80,281,360 

Divorce,     decree,     jurisdic- 
tion            1.79 

1901,  March  3  : 

Adjudication  de  novo 141, 

213,318 

Adulterous   cohabitation 362 

Declaration,   decree   nisi 440 

Divorce     111,198,411,452 

I'resuraption   of  death, 

estoppel    441 

Dropping,   section   4706,   R. 

S 128,  194 

Fraud  or  mistake,  res  judi- 
cata            141 

Act  December  21,  1893.        320 

1902,  June  27  : 

Limitation 13 

Service,   evidence 296,298 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


85 


Page. 
1902,  July  1  :  Joint  resolution  : 

Attorneys,  recognition 276 

Bounty  or  gratuity 466 

Substitute,  private  con- 
tract         380 

Desertion,  removal 502 

Disloyalty,    death    prior    to 

removal   of,   bar 104,  422 

Pardon,  honorable  discharge        352 


1902,  July     1  :     Joint     resolution- 

Continued. 

Service,   last  contract 552 

1903,  March  2  : 

Artificial  limb 264 

I'ractice   215 

Iterating,       commencement, 

act  March  3,  1883 508 

Total  disability  in  both  feet       524 


Sections  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States. 


l»age. 
1051,  Length      of      service,      Indian 

wars   495 

1(551.  Length  of  service,  Indian  wars_        495 

2418.  Bounty  land,  lapse  of  title 416 

4693,  Service,  muster 392 

Contract  surgeons 518 

4698^,  Increase,    commencement,   act 

June  27,   1890 69 

4701.  Length      of      service,      Indian 

wars 410,495 

4702.  Line    of    duty,    absence    from 

command    114 

Minors,  commencement 31 

4703.  Special  act.  continuance 332 

4704.  Legitimacy,   marriage,   laws   of 

Ohio    428 

4705.  Legitimacy 1__        288 

Marriage    24,  157,  437 

4706.  Restoration,      act      March      3, 

1901    128,  194 


Page. 
4707,  Dependent     parents,    abandon- 
ment    271 

Means  of  support 267 

Orphan  brothers  and  sisters. _  490 

4709,  Limitation,  minors 31,  33 

4713,  Division  of  pension 2. 

4715,  Navy  pensions    2 

4716,  See  1902,  July  1,  joint  resolu- 

tion, disloyalty. 

4718,  Accrued  pension 36 

4719,  Adjudication  de  novo 320 

Remarriage,  estoppel 469 

Restoration    106 

Vested   right 110 

4756,  Division  of  pension 1 

4757,  Division  of  pension 1 

Payment,    jurisdiction 226 

Reimbursement,     overpayment, 

reduction    224 

5597,  Bounty  land,  lapse  of  title 416 


State  Statutes. 


Page. 
California,    Laws    of    1901,    p.    335, 

marriage    266 

Delaware  : 

Constitution,  Art.  VII,  5  and  9. 

Laws  of  England,  marriage —       527 
Revised  Code,  chap.   74,  sec,   2, 

Ibid     —       528 

Florida,  acts  of  December  12  and  14, 

1866,  slave  marriage 384 

Illinois.   Rev.   Stats.,  chap.   68,   sees. 

5.  9.  11.  15.  property  rights,  dower  _        294 
Kentucky,  act  of  February  14,  1866, 

marriage,    legitimacy 475 

Louisiana,  Civil  Code,  art.  91,  mar- 
riage         344 

Maryland.   Laws  of   1867,   marriage, 

colored  persons 348 

Massachusetts  : 

Laws  of  1870.  chap.  404,  decree 

nisi 440 

Rev.    laws.    chap.    151,    sec.    39, 

marriage    465 

Stats,    of    1840,    chap.    84,    and 

1841,  chap.  20,  Ibid 461 


Page. 

Mississippi,  Const.  December  1,  1869, 

art.  12.  sec.  22.  marriage 477 

Missouri,  act  of  February  20,   1865, 

marriage,  slaves 491 

New  York,  Rev.  Stats.,  chap.  8,  art. 

1,  sec.  6,  V.  3,  p.  2332,  marriage--        20, 

177,  366 

South  Carolina,  act  of  December  21, 
1865  (13  Stat.  L.,  269),  marriage 
of  slaves   537 

Texas,  June  5,  1837  (art.  4670,  Pas- 
chal's    Annot.    Dig.),    marriage   of 
■  colored    persons    157 

Utah,  act  of  March  6,  1852,  divorce, 

probate   court 99 

Virginia,  act  of  February  27,  1866  ; 
Code,  sees.  2222,  2553,  2554,  mar- 
riage         447 

Wisconsin,  Rev.  Stats.,  sees.  2330, 
2333,  2394,  4594,  marriage,  im- 
pediment      19 


PENSION  DECISIONS— VOLUME  15. 


TABLE  OF  CASES  CITED. 


A. 

Page. 

Abston  V.  Abston  (15  La.  An.,  137)  _  53.') 
Ackenback,  George  (7  P.  D.,  1G9)_   162,547 

Adair  v.  Mette  (156  Mo.,  406) 87 

Adams  v.  Adams   (12  P.  D.,  370)___  98, 

114,  135 

Adams,  Carmichael  r.  (01  Ind.,  526)  _  280 

Alexander,  Enoch   (11  I'.  D..  151)—  443 
Allburn,    Christena    E.     (13    P.    D., 

333) 230 

Allbut's  System  of  Medicine  (1897)-  358 

Allen,  Downs  v.   (10  Lea,  652) 521 

Allen  V.  Hall  (2  N.  &  McC,  114) ___  541 

Allen,  Osborn  v.   (2  Dutch.,  388) _—  43 

Alsup.  Susan  F.   (14  P.  D..  404) 161 

American  and  English  Encyclopedia 
of  Law  : 

V.  10,  2  ed..  32 461 

V.    11,   2  ed.,   300,   and   notes   1 

and   2 560 

V.  25,  2  ed.,  1060,  note  1 500 

Anderson  v.  Mitchell  (52  Ind.,  502) _  280 

Anderson  v.  Watt  (138  U.  S.,  604 )_  461 

Anderson.  James  W.   (9  I'.  D.,  422) _  27 

Andrews  v.  Page  (3  lleisk.,  667)—  32 

Andrews  r.  I'age  (50  Tenn.,  653) 510 

Andrews  v.  Simmons  (68  Miss.,  732) _  12 

Armington,  State  v.   (25  Minn.,  20)-  230 
Ashford    v.    Insurance    Co.    (80    Mo. 

Ap.,  6,38) 87 

Assistant  Attorney-(ieneral,   Interior 

Department    (Dec.   1,   1804) 310 

Atherton    r.    Atherton     (181    U.    S., 

155) - 41 

Atherton,  Jennie   (14  1'.  D.,  554) 240 

Attorney-CJenerals  Opinion,  Mar.   17. 

1848    (Mayo  &  Moulton,  454) 314 

Attorney-General  (7  Op.,  140)    (2  I'. 

D.,  403) 55 

Attorney-CJeneral  (15  Op.,   157) 73 


B. 


Babbitt  v.  Babbitt  (60  111.,  277) 18 

Bacon  v.  Bacon   (43  Wis.,  107) 472 

Badger  r.  Badger    (88  N.  Y.,  546)  __  200, 

204, 410 

Bailey,  David  J.  (7  P.  D.,  173) 27 

Ball,  Robert  II.    (14  P.  D.,  228) 360 

Ball,  Tamezen   (3  P.  D.,  183) 303 


Page. 

Bannock.  Dyer  r.   (66  Mo.,  391) 87 

Barber  r.  Barber   (21  How.,  582)  ___  461 

Barker  r.  Dayton   (28  Wis.,  367)—  472 

Barker  r.  Valentine  (125  Mich.,  336)  _  243 

Barleyoung,  John   (7  P.  D.,  453) ___  200, 

282,  295 

Barlow,  Alfred  (8  P.  D.,  282) 62 

Barnum  v.  Barnum  (42  Ind.,  251)  __  470 

Bartlett,  E.  W.   (3  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  240)  _  251 

Bartlett.  Sarah  A.   (15  P.  D.,  290)  __  468 

Basing  v.  Basing  (3  Sw.  &  Tr.,  516)  _  91 

Bay  r.  Doughty   (4  Blackf.,  115)—-  280 

Beatrie,  Schmisseur  v.  (147  111..  210 )_  187 

Benkert  r.  Benkert  (32  Cal.,  467)—  91 

Bennett  r.  Sloman   (70  N.  H.,  290) _  261 
Benson,   McCaffrey   v.    (38   La.    An., 

■      198) - 534 

Benson,   McCaffrey    r.    (40   La.   An., 

10) 534 

Benson,  John   (12  1'.  D.,  221) 274 

Berlin,    II.    S.    (attorney)     (9   P.   D., 

471) 170 

Bigelow  on  Estoppel    (p.  46,  3d  sub- 
division and  notes) 558 

Bird,  Daniel   (10  P.  D.,  104) 387 

Bird.  Nancy   (14  P.  D.,  347) 465 

Bishop  on  Marriage  and  Divorce  : 

V.  1,  sees.  279.  280.  283 145 

sec.   1772 344 

v.  2,  sec.    225 129 

457 231 

Bishop    on    Marriage,    Divorce,    and 
Separation  : 

V.  1,  sec.  633  et  seq 310 

970 245 

975 245 

979 245 

982 469 

1714 461 

1723 458 

1724,  notes  2  and  7 458 

1727.  note  4 458 

1730 458 

V.  2.  sec.  Ill 461 

Black  on  Judgments,  v.  2,  sees.  333, 

925 500 

Black,  United  States  v.    (128  U.   S., 

40) 477 

Blackman,    (iholson     r.     (33    Tenn., 

580) 516 


86 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


87 


Pajfe. 
Blake  v.  National  Banks   (23  Wall., 

307,  319) 67 

Blitch.  Kathrlna  (11  P.  D.,  247)—  107 
Blanchard     r.     Lambert     (43     Iowa. 

228) 174,  245 

Boniface,  Polar  Star  Mutual  Bene- 
fit Association  v.  (20  Weekly  Dig., 

522) 424 

Boorman's     Estate,     Clarke     r.     (18 

Wall.,   493) 499 

Boster,  Bethany  F.  (15  P.  D.,  300) _  448 
Boulden      ;?.     Mclntire      (119     Ind., 

574) 231 

Bowen,  Ignited  States  r.    (100  U.  S.. 

508) 314,  .353 

Bowles,  Harvey  (10  I'.  D.,  133) 73 

Bowman   i\  Bowman  (14  P.  D.,  120)_        98, 

135,  344,  560 

Boyd,  Melissa  (14  P.  D.,  279) 286, 

462,  475,  503 
Bradford,  Thos.  S.  (8  P.  D.,  139)  ___  274 
Brantigam,  Maria  (11  I*.  D.,  388) __  142 
Bremer  r.  Briggs  (32  Ohio  S.,  473) _  146 
Briggs,  Bremer  v.  (32  Ohio  S.,  473 )_  146 
Briggs,  Davie  r.    (97  U.   S.,  628)  ___         4.3, 

256,  348 
Briggs.  Henrietta   (12  P.  D.,  479)  __       223 

Britton,  State  v.   (4  McC,  256) 541 

Brobst  r.  Brobst  (13  P.  D.,  218)—  249 
Brockman,  George  E.  (1  P.  D.,  453)_  162 
Bronson,  Hammich  r.  (5  Day,  293 )_  292 
Broom   and   Hadley's   Commentaries, 

V.   1,  p.   74,  Am.  ed 168 

Brothers  r.  State  (42  Tenn.,  201)  __       516 

Brown  r.  Brown   (15  I».  D.,  14) 94 

Brown  v.  Cheatham  (91  Tenn.,  97) _  503,  521 

Brown  v.  .Tewett  (18  N.  H.,  230) 260 

Brown,  Eliza  J.  (14  P.  D.,  106) 480 

Brownsword  v.  Edwards  (2  Ves.  Sr., 

243)    512 

Bruening,  State  v.  (60  Mo.  App.,  51)-  5.59 
Budington     r.     Munson     (33    Conn., 

481)    292 

Bunch,  minor  of  Rabbitt   (13  P.  D., 

368)    387 

Bunker,  Mooers  v.  (29  N.  H.,  341 )_  261 
Burdette     r.     Burdette     (14    P.    D., 

14<>)    40,93,557 

Burge,  Col.  and  For.  Laws 1,  152,  532 

Burke,  Fox  v.   (31  Minn.,  319) 239 

Burnham    r.    Burnham     (14    P.    D., 

191)    454 

Burns,    Patrick    H.    (11    P.    D.,   332, 

362)    73 

Burton,  Reuben   (11  P.  D.,  294) 503 

Bush,  Sarah  (9  P.  D.,  144) 73 

Bushaw  V.  State  (2  Yer.,  — ) 33 

Bussi&re,  succession  of   (41  La.  An., 

217)    535 

Byrns  v.   Byrns  (14  P.  D.,  404) 58,94 


C. 


Page. 
333 


238 
73 
86 
91 

280 

145 
175 
401 
224 
419 
387 

249 
239 


Caldwell,    Davenport    v.    (10    S.    C, 
317)    


411 


Caperton,  .Tames  O.  (15  P.  D.,  332) _ 
Carey,  Hulett  v.  (66  Minn.,  327,  rep. 

in  69  N.   W.,  31) 

Carey.  Stephen  H.   (6  1'.  D.,  42) 

Cargile  r.  Wood   (63  Mo..  501) 

Cargill  V.  Cargill  (1  Sw.  &  Tr.,  235) 
Carmichael      r.      Adams      (91      Ind., 

526)    

Carmichael   v.  State   (12  Ohio.  n.  s., 

5.53)    

Carroll  r.  Carroll  (20  Tex..  731) 

(20  Tex.,  742) 

Cash  V.  Cash    (67  Ark..   278) 

Caujolle  t'.  Ferrle   (23  N.  Y.,  90) 

Chambers,  Patrick   (14  I'.  D.,  474)  _ 
Chapman   r.    Chapman    ("707    I*.    L. 

B..  373)    

Charles  v.  Charles  (41  Minn.,  201 )_ 
Cheatham,     Brown     r.      (91-    Tenn,, 

97) 50.3,521 

Cherokee  Nation  t\  Georgia   (5  Pet., 

1)    283 

Christopher    v.    Christopher    (13    P. 

D.,    383)     22,93 

Church  V.  Grossman  (49  Iowa,  444)  _       461 
Claflin,   United  States  v.    (97  U.   S., 

456)    

Clapp,  Potter  r.    (203  111.,  592) 

Clark   V.    Boorman's   Ex.    (18   Wall.. 

493)    

Clark  V.  Clark  (14  P.  D.,  479)___  453,  .561 
Clark,  Forsaith  v.  (21  N.  H.,  409) __       261 

Clarke,  Rose  v.  (8  Page,  575) 293,418 

Claw,  Jackson  v.  (18  .lohns.,  346)_  349,418 
Clendenning  v.  Clendenning  (3  Mar- 
tin  U.    S.,   438) 

Clevenger  on   Medical   Jurisprudence 
of  Insanity  : 

(V.    1,   p.   49) 

(489,    sec.    1) 

(557,  note  5) 

(V.  2,  p.  938) 

Clinton    v.    Clinton    (60    Mo.    App., 

296)    

Coal  Co.  V.  Jones  (127  III.,  379) ___ 
Cobb,   Railroad   Co.   v.    (35   Ohio   S., 

94)    

CoflFey  v.  United  States   (116  T'.  R.. 

443)    

Cole   V.   Cole    (153   111.,   585) 

Collector,  The,  Ilaaden  v.   (5  Wall., 

107) 

Commonwealth  v.  Watson  (97  Mass., 

562) 

Communication  : 

(Secretary  Stuart)    (1  L,  P.  B., 

252)    

(Secretary  Stuart)    (2  L.  P.  B., 

33)    

(Secretary  McClelland)   (4  L.  P. 

B.,    65)    

(Secretary  Harlan)    (5  L.  P.  B., 

455)    

(Assistant     Secretary     Bussey) 

(4  P.   D.,  225) 73 


436 

187 


499 


537 


456 
457 
456 
457 

458 
187 

146 

559 

187 

67 

85 


62 


62 


62 


62 


"  I'ress  letter  book. 


88 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Page. 

Coney,  Angeline  (7  P.  D.,  390) 36S 

Connor,  Winship  i\  (42  N.  H.,  341 )_  261 
Conover  v.  Conover  (11  P.  D.,  524 )_       114 

Cook  V.  Cook    (56  Wis.,   197) 472 

Cooley     on     Constitutional     Limita- 
tions   (400  and  note  1) 239 

Cooper  V.  Cooper  (12  P.  D.,  163)  __  135 
Cooper  V.  Cooper  (13  P.  D.,  208)  __  41,93 
Cooper,  Chesley,  minors  of  (8  P.  D., 

216)    359 

Cooper,  Warwick  v.   (5  Sneed,  660 )_         32 

Corte,  Ellen    (728  L.  B.  P.,  68) 427 

Cowan,  Franklin  S.  (7  P.  D.,  374)  __       282 

Craig,  Mary  W.   (13  P.  D.,  259) 65 

Crissey  v.  Crissey  (14  P.  D.,  334)  __  134 
Curd,  McClintock  v.   (32  Mo.  411 )__       457 

Curran,  John  W.   (5  P.  D.,  1) 405 

Curtis,  Samuel  T.  (14  P.  D.,  298)  _  53,131 


D. 


Daniels,  Harriet   (14  P.  D.,  434)  ___  25 

Darling,  Elizabeth  (10  P.  D.,  244)  __  195 
Darling,  Elizabeth  (10  P.  D.,  299 )_  172,  195 
Davenport    v.    Caldwell    (10    S.    C, 

317)    412 

Davie  v.  Briggs,  (97  U.  S.,  628) 43, 

256,  348 
Davies,    Morris   v.    (5   CI.    and   Fin., 

163)    425 

Davis  V.  Davis   (30  111.,  180) 18 

Davis  V.  Davis   (10  P.  D.,  403) 135 

Davis,  Chauncey   (10  P.  D.,  12) 334 

Davis,  John  B.   (L.  B.  "J,"  1889) 303 

Davis,  Margaret  A;  (14  P.  D.,  408)  _  44 
Davis,    minors    of    John    (9    P.    D., 

152)    384 

Davis,  Sellan  v.    (4  Yer.,  502) 34 

Davison,  In  re  (21  Fed.  Rep.,  618) _  520 

Dayton,  Barker  r.  (28  Wis.,  367)—  472 
De    Amador,    United    States    v.     (16 

N.    Mex.,    173) 393 

Deering  Harvester  Co.  v.  Kelly  (103 

Fed.   Rep.,   261) 219 

Demo  V.  Demo  (14  P.  D.,  394,405).  458 

Dennis  v.  Dennis  (68  Conn.,  186)  __  293 

Dennis,  Annie   (9  P.  D.,  243) 175 

Denny,  Henry   (12  P.  D.,  226) 550 

Dick,  Iloltz   r.    (42  O.   S.,  23) 22G 

Dilworth,  Emily  O.   (11  P.  D.,  459) _  142 

Dingle  v.  Mitchell   (20  S.  C,  202) __  412 

Divoll  V.  Leadbetter  (21  Mass.,  220)  146 

Dixon  r.  People   (18  Mich.,  84) 231 

Dobbs,   Elisha,   minor  of    (15   P.   D., 

488)    548 

Doughty,  Bay  v.  (4  Blackf.,  115) __  280 
Douglas,  minors  Geo.  W.    (11  P.  D., 

448)    384 

Downs  V.  Allen   (10  Lea,  652) 521 

Doyle,  State  v.  (68  Mo.  App.,  219) _  559 
Drake,  Sarah,  mother  (785  P.  L.  B., 

121)    501 

Draper,  Mary  E.  (14  P.  D.,  456)  __  292,  463 

Driskill,  Fleenor  v.   (97  Ind.,  27)___  390 

Dunn,  Frederick  (13  P.  D.,  422)____  344 

Dunn,  Mollie   (widow) 490 


Page. 

Durham,  Jennings  v.  (101  Ind.,  391)  280 

Durkee,  James  J.  (8  P.  D.,  152) 487 

Dyer  r.  Bannock  (66  Mo.,  391) 87 

E. 

Eaton,  Chas.  A.   (15  P.  D.,  232) 549 

Edwards,  In  re  (58  Iowa,  431) 176 

Edwards,  Brownsword  v.  (2  Ves.  Sr., 

243)     512 

Eisenlohr,  O'Gara  v.  (38  N.  Y.,  296) _  416 

Elliott  f.  Elliott  (14  P.  D.,  472) 220 

Elliott,   John,   widow   of    (15   P.   D., 

23)    130 

Elliott,  Mary  A.,  widow  of  John  (15 

P.  D.,  23) 130 

Ellis  V.  Ellis  (58  Iowa,  720) 174 

Elwell  V.  State  (6  Yer.,  364) 33 

Emmett  v.  Emmett  (14  Lea,  371 )__  32 
Encyclopedia  of  I'leading  and  Prac- 
tice : 

(v.  2,  pp.  492,  493,  495) 219 

(V.  2,  p.  67) 472 

(v.  13,  p.  882) 511 

Enflnger,  John  (13  P.  D.,  248) 65 

Engle,  minors  of  Richard  (152  L.  B. 

P.,  270:    208  L.  B.  P.,  183) 384 

English,  R.  G.   (11  P.  D.,  177) 126 

Estate  of  Jennings  (4  Month.  L.  Bui., 

40)     294 

Evans  v.  Reynolds  (32  Ohio  S.,  163) _  146 

Fagan  v.  Fagan   (32  N.  Y.  St.  Rep., 

994)     416 

Falls,  Lapresse  r.   (7  Ind.,  692) 280 

Fane,  Amanda  (10  P.  D.,  254) 503 

Farrell,  Edward  (7  P.  D.,  532)___   198,282 

Fenton  v.  Reed  (4  Johns.,  51,  52)  __  245, 

293,  415 

Ferrie,  Caujolle  v.  (23  N.  Y.,  90)___  419 

Fleagle  r.  Fleagle  (12  P.  D.,  56)  ___  114 

Fleenor  r.  Driskill  (97  Ind.,  27) 390 

Florence,  In  re   (54  Hun,  328) 462 

Flowers  V.  Haralson  ( —  Yer.,  494) _  35 

Flynn,  Ellen  (8  P.  D.,  54) 306 

Forbin  v.  Forbin  (13  P.  D.,  20) 249 

Fordham  v.  Gouverneur  Village    (39 

N.  Y.  Supp.,  396) 208,293,418 

Fornshill  r.  Murray  (1  Bland,  479)  _  512 

Forsaith  v.  Clark  (21  N.  H.,  409) _—  261 

Foster  v.  Hawley  (8  Hun.,  68)——  415 

Fox  V.  Burke  (31  Minn.,  319) 239 

Fox,    Cora    B.,    minor   Thos.    J.    (12 

P.   D.,   102) 224,490 

Fox,   Thos.   J.,   minor  of    (12   P.   D, 

102)     224,490- 

Frank,  Hendricks  v.  (86  Ind.,  278)—  280 

Franklin  r.  Lee  (30  Ind.  Ap.,  31)—  230 
Freeman  on  Judgments  : 

Sec.    45 390 

Sees.   257,  258,  271 560 

Freight   Association,    U.    S.    v.    (166 

U.  S.,  290,  318) 67 

Frisbe  v.  United   States    (157  U.   S., 

166)    185. 

Fryer  v.  Fryer  (Rich.  Eq.  Ca.,  85)—  541 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


89 


G. 

Pagei 

Gaines  t:  Hennen  (65  U.  S.,  553) ___  536 

Gaines,  Patterson   (47  U.  S.,  550)  __  536 

Gaines  v.  Relf  et  al.  (53  U.  S.,  472) _  537 
Gall  r.  Gall  (114  N.  Y.,  109)_   210,  293.410 

Garrison,  Pence  v.   (93  Ind.,  345)  __  280 

Gates,  Johanna   (10  P.  D.,  28) 325 

Gee,  Cora,  now  Stol worth   (14  P.  D., 

413)     326 

Gembe,  Mary   (13  P.  D.,  460) 286,510 

Georgia,  Cherokee  Nation  r.   (5  Pet., 

1)     ■ 283 

Georgia,  Worcester  v.   (6  Pet.,  515) _  283 

Gholson  r.  Blackman  (33  Tenn.,  580)  516 
Gibson,  Suits  in  Chancery  : 

Sec.    130 511 

Sec.     133 514 

Sees.  876  and  887,  note  6 515 

Gilbert,  Margaret  (8  P.  D.,  249)  ___  503 

Giles   r.  Little    (104  U.  S.,  291) 499 

Giles,  Cyrenius  (6  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  235) _  47,48 
Gillespie,  John,  minors  of  (13  P.  D.. 

280)     73 

Gilliland,  Mary  J.   (13  P.  D.,  90) __  45,224 
Gillinwaters  v.  Gillinwaters  (28  Mo.. 

60)     458 

Gill,  In  re   (20  Wis.,  686) 472 

Gilman  v.  Sheets  (78  Iowa,  499) 174 

Gloyd,  Melcenia  E.   (7  P.  D.,  413)  __  326 

Goodrich,  PingrSe  v.  (41  Vt.,  47) 512 

Gouverneur  Village,  Forhham  v.   (39 

N.  Y.   Supp.,  396) 208,293.418 

Grand   Lodge  A.   O.   U.   W.,   Parsons 

V.    (108  Iowa,  6) 174 

Grant  v.  Grant  (12  S.  C,  30) 543 

Grant  v.  Grant  (740  P.  L.  B.,  397 )_  249 
Graves,   minors  of  James  R.    (13  P. 

D.,  148) 384 

Greenleaf  on  Evidence  (1,  sec.  537)-  558 
Gi-eensbo rough   v.  Underbill   (12  Vt., 

604) 231 

Griffin,    Lake  Erie,   etc.,    Ry.   v.    (92 

Ind.,    487) 280 

Griffin,  Jas.  M.  (8  P.  D.,  57) 27 

Guernsey,  Charles  F.  M.  (715  L.  P.  B., 

218)    339 


H. 


Hadden   v.   The   Collector    (5    Wall., 

107)    67 

Hagerty,  William  H.  (10  P.  D.,  359)  73 

Hall,  Allen  v.  (2  N.  &  McC,  114) __  541 

Hall,  Leach  i?.  (95  Iowa,  611) 174 

Hall.  Laura  (9  P.  D.,  439) 306 

Hallett,  Emma  J.  (13  P.  D.,  1) 388 

Hamilton    v.    Rathbone    (175    U.    S.. 

419)    66 

Hammich  v.  Bronson  (5  Day,  293)—  292 

Haney.  Zwickey  v.   (63  Wis.,  464)  __  473 
Harris  v.  Harris  (8  111.  App.,  57).   187,  231 

Harris,  Hinks  v.  (4  Mod.,  182) 512 

Harrison,  Swan  v.  (2  Cold.,  535) ___  514 

Hawkins,  Lettie  (8  P.  D.,  22) 465 

Hawley,  Foster  v.  (8  Hun,  68)' 415 

Hayes  v.  Hayes  (13  P.  D.,  212)  __  135,  222 


Page. 
Hays,  United  States  v.   (20  Fed.  R., 

710)     245 

Hays,  Rachel   (15  V.  D..  186) 293 

Heinz,  John   (10  1'.  D..  289) 501 

Ileming  v.  Price  (12  Mod..  432) 512 

Heminway  v.  Miller    (87  Minn.,  123, 

rep.  in  91  N.  W.,  428) 238 

Hendricks  v.  Frank  (86  Ind.,  278) __  280 

Hennen,  Gaines  r.   (65  U.  S.,  553) 536 

Henry,  Red  Rock  v.  (106  U.  S.,  596) _  436 

Hetherington,  Anna   (10  I*.  D.,355)_  526 

Higgins,  Annie  (10  P.  D.,  110) 465 

High  on  Extraordinary  Legal  Reme- 
dies   (sec.   130) 477 

Hill,  Camden  L.   (14  P.  D.,  57) 486 

Hilton,  State  r.   (3  Rich.,  434) 541 

Hinks  r.  Harris   (4  Mod..  182) 512 

Iloh  r.  Hob   (84  Wis.,  378) 473 

Holbrook  r.  State  (34  Ark.,  511)  ___  224 

Holtz  r.  Dick   (42  O.  S..  23) 226 

Hopkins  v.  Hopkins  (39  Wis.,  167 )_  472 
Hopkins,    Smith    r.    (120   Fed.   Rep., 

921)     219 

Houston,  Yates  r.   (3  Tex.,  433) 175, 

231,  245,  400 

Howard,  Harriet  D.  (13  P.  D.,  448) _  205 
Howard,  minors  of  Lafayette  G.    (8 

P.   D..  230) 384 

Hubbard  v.  Hubbard   (19  Colo..  13) _  556 

Ilubbell  r.  Inkstein  (7  La.  An.,  252 )_  534 

Hughes,  Annie   (8  P.  D.,  455) 476 

Hulett  V.  Carey  (66  Minn.,  327,  rep. 

in  69  N.  W.,  31) 238 

Hunt,  Martha  A.  (L.  B.  "  U,"  1890)  _  303 
Human,    Jefferson    M.     (12    P.    D.. 

500)     234 

Hunter  v.  Hunter   (14  P.  D.,  136)  __  240. 

248.  459.  499 
Hutchinson  v.  Hutchinson   (196  111.. 

432)     191 

Hyatt  V.  Hyatt   (14  P.  D.,  8) 84, 

98,  114,  220,  560 

Hyatt,  Frederick  W.  (14  P.  D.,  367 )_  97 
Hynes    v.     McDermott     (91     N.    Y.. 

451) 210.  245,  293,  413 

I. 

Inghams,  Hester  A.  (13  P.  D.,  173 )_  387 
Insurance   Co.,   Ashford   v.    (80   Mo. 

Ap.,     638) 87 

Isk,  Thompson  r.   (99  Mo.,  106) 456 

Israel  v.  .Tudson   (95  Ind..  543) 280 

Inkstein.    Hubbell    r.     (7    La.    An., 

252) 534 

J. 

Jackson  v.  Claw  (x8  .Johns.,  346)  _  349,418 

Jarnigan  r.  Jarnigan  (12  Lea..  293 )_  30 
Jarvis    v.     Jarvis     (3    Edward,    ch. 

462) 472 

.Tennings  t;.  Durham  (101  Ind..  391)-  280 
Jennings,    estate   of      (4   Month.    L. 

Bui.,    40) 294,424 

Jermann    v.    Tenneas     (39    L.    An., 

1021)     534 


90 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Page. 
Jetmore,    Waymire    v.     (22    O.    St.. 

271)     308 

Jewett,  Brown  r.  (18  N.  H.,  230)  __  260 
John,  Offut   V.    (8  Mo.,   120;  40  Am. 

Dec,   and   note) 560 

Johnson  r.  Johnson  (1  Cold.,  626)  _  36 

Johnson  r.  Johnson  (147  111.,  611)  _  187 

Johnson  r.   Johnson  (4  Wis.,  135) 472 

Johnson  r.  Schloesser  (146  Ind., 

509)  390 

Johnson,  Sharp  r.    (22  Ark.,  79) 224 

Johnson,   John   L.   (14   I'.   D., 

296)  53,131,398 

Jones  r.  Jones   (28  Ark.,  19) 490 

Jones   r.  Jones   (13  P.  D.,  521) 94 

Jones,  Coal  Co.  r.   (127  111.,  379) 187 

Judson,  Israel  r.   (95  Ind.,  543) 280 

K. 

Kaufman,  Daniel  B.   (3  I'.  D.,  137)-  73 

Keels  Estate   (30  W.  N.  C,  419) 495 

Kelly,  Deering  Harvester  Co.  r.  (103 

Fed.  Rep.,  261) 219 

Kelsey,  Cyrus  J.   (753  L.  B.  I\,  63)  _  301 

Kendall  r.  Kendall   (14  P.  D..  159) _  94 

Kennedy  r.  Kennedy  (87  111.,  250) _  18 
Kerren,  Matilda  (7  I'.  D.,  443)___  314,351 

Kersey,  Sarah  A.   (6  P.  D.,  1) 341 

King's  Heirs,  McCorry  v.   (13  Hum., 

267)    32 

Klein  v.  Landman  (29  Mo.,  259)  __  231 
Knappenberger,    Caroline    (3    P.    D., 

263)     337 

Knowles,    Northrop     r.     (52    Conn., 

522) 292 

Knowlton.  Smith  v.   (11  N.  H.,  191)  260 

L. 

Lake  County   r.   Rollins    (130  U.   S., 

662)     66 

Lake    Erie,    etc.,    Ry.    r.    Griffin    (92 

Ind.,    487) 280 

Lambert,     Blanchard     r.     (43     Iowa 

228)     174 

Lampkin   r.  Insurance  Co.    (11  Colo. 

Ct.    of    Ap..    249) 256 

Lancaster,   Ignited   States  i\    (2  Mc- 
Lean.    431) .347 

Land  r.  Land   (206  111.,  288) 193 

Lapresse  r.  Falls  (7  Ind.,  692) 280 

Laraway,  Annie  E.    (14  P.  D.,  212) _  495 

Landman,  Klein  r.   (29  Mo.,  259)  ___  231 

Laughlin,  John  (9  P.  D..  466) 85 

Lawley,  Lewis  (14  P.  D.,  13)_  53,131,398 
Lea  r.  Lea   (99  Mass.,  493:  96  Am. 

Dec,   772   and   notes) 560 

Leach  r.  Hall   (95  Iowa.  611) 174 

lieadbetter,  Divoll  r.  (21  Mass.,  220)  146 

Lee.  Franklin  r.  (30  Ind.  Ap.,  31)__*  230 

Linck.  State  r.    (68  Mo.  App.,  161 )_  559 

Little,  Giles  r.   (104  I'.  S..  291) 490 

Livengood    r.    Livengood    (13   P.    D., 

134) 6,  134,  147 

liivingston,    Summerlin    c.     (15    La. 

An.,  519) 535 


Page. 

Lockhard  r.  Lockhard  (14  P.  D.,  45)  458 

Lockhart  v.  White  (18  Tex.,  102) ___  400 
Loeb,    Nathan,    alias    Nathan    Lyon 

(11   P.   D.,  286) 526 

Loomis,  Charles  T.   (5  P.  D.,  35) 569 

Lott,  Catherine   (5  P.  D.,  382) 80 

Loughry  r.  Loughry  (11  P.  D.,  523 )_  114 

Lufkin  r.  Lufkin  (182  Mass.,  476)  __  462 

Lutes,  Nettie  C.   (14  P.  D.,  281) 205 

I-ynch   r.  Lynch    (13  P.   D.,  447)—-  93 

Lyons,  Emily  J.   (261  L.  B.,  288) ___  547 


M. 


McBride,  Anna  L.   (9  P.  D.,  338) 318 

McCaflfrey    r.    Benson    (38    La.    An., 

198:  40  La.  An.,  10) 534 

McCarty,     Maria     (10    P.     D.,     118, 

123) 145,465 

McCIintock  v.  Curd  (32  Mo.,  411)  __  457 
McCollum,  Mary  B.  (6  P.  D.,  93)-  186,  194 
McCorry    v.    Kings    heirs    (3    Hum., 

267) 32 

McCraney  (5  Iowa,  232  ;  6  Am.  Dec, 

702)     344 

McDerraott,  Hynes  v.  (91  N.  Y.,  451)  -  210, 

245,  293,  413 
McDonald,  Julia  G.    (4   P.   D.,  o.  s., 

467)     562 

McGown,    Cartwright    v.     (121    111., 

388)     186 

McGrady  r.  McGrady   (40  Mo.  App., 

668,677)    458 

Mclntire,  Boulden  r.  (119  Ind.,  574)  231 
McLauchlan      r.      McLauchlan       (1 

Scotch  Sess.  Ca.,  2d  series,  294 )__  91 

McReynolds  v.  State  (5  Cold.,  630 )_  33 

McReynolds  r.  State  (45  Tenn.,  18)-  519 

Macentee,  John  J.  (12  P.  D.,  464)—  56 
Madden,    Michael,    minors    of    (7    P. 

D.,     .34) 562 

Maddox,  Martha  (12  P.  D.,  447)— _  387 
Madison,   Marbury  v.    (1    Cranch  U. 

S.,    1.37) 477 

Mallison  r.  Mallison  (L.  R.,  1  P.  and 

D.,  93) 91 

Manning  r.  Spruck  (199  111.,  447) _  186,  191 
Manson,  Allbut's  System  of  Medicine 

(1897)     .358 

Manson,  Tropical  Diseases  (1900)--  358 
Marbury    /•.    Madison    (1    Cranch   U. 

S..    1.37) 477 

Marcadf,  Explication  du  Code  Napo- 
leon : 

(tome    1,    520) 532 

(tome    1,    525) 534 

Martin   r.  Martin    (13  P.  D.,  4.30)  _-  86 

Maskall  v.  Maskall  (3  Sneed,  208)  _-  514 

Mathers,  Sarah   (14  P.  D..  318) 382, 

476,  483 

Matson,  Eliza  (15  P.  D.,  47) 524 

Maxwell   on   Interpretation   of   Stat- 
utes   (179) ,--  72 

Maxwell,  United  States  Trust  Co.  r. 

(57  N.  Y.  Supp.,  .53) 416 

Mayhew,  Taylor  v.  (11  Ileis.,  596 )-_  516 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


91 


Page. 

Medley  v.  Medley  (12  P.  D.,  490)  ___  134 

Meeker,  John  H.   (10  P.  D.,  182)  ___  73 

Meister  r.  Moore   (96  U.  S.,  76) 145 

Mellen,  Stella  (15  P.  D.,  459) 509 

Mette,  Adair  v.  (156  Mo.,  .496) 87 

Mexican  War  Treaty   (P'eb.  2,  1848)  313 

Miller,  (9  N.  Y.  Supp.,  639) ___  349 

Miller,  Ilerainway  r.   (87  Minn.,  123, 

rep.  in  91  N.  W.,  428) 238 

Miller  v.  Miller  (150  Mass.,  111)___  93 

Miner,  Lydia  M.   (8  P.  D.,  104) 110 

Mitchell,  Anderson  v.   (52  Ind.,  592)  280 

Mitchell,  Dinj?le  r.   (20  S.  C,  202)__  412 
Mitchell  r.  United  States   (88  U.  S., 

352)     ^ 58 

Monholland,    Frances    A.     (7    P.    D., 

494)    509 

Monthony,    Stephen    F.     (11    P.    D., 

193)    8 

Mooers  v.  Bunker   (29  N.  H.,  341 )__  261 

Moore,  Meister  v.  (96  U.  S..  76) 145 

Moore  v.  Moore  (102  Tenn.,  148) 33 

Morley  r.  Morley   (14  P.  D.,  230)  __  40, 

93,  557 

Morrill,  Emma  A.  (14  1'.  I).,  310)  __  505 
Morris    v.    Davies    (5    CI.    and    Fin., 

163)    425 

Morris,  Elwood   (9  P.  D.,  353) 409 

Muir   V.    Muir    (6   Scotch    Sess.    Ca., 

4th  series,  1353) 91 

Muller,  Marie  D.   (15  P.  D.,  94) 277 

Munson,    Budington    t\     (33    Conn., 

481)    292 

Munson,  Charles  W.   (8  P.  D.,  386)  _  318 

Murray,  Fornshill  v.   (1  Bland,  479)  512 

Muse,  Robert  W.  P.  (2  P.  D.,  180) __  161 


N. 


National  Banks,  Blake  v.   (23  Wall., 

307,    319) 67 

Nelson    on    Divorce    and    Separation 

(vol.  2,  sec.  568) 511 

Nichols,  Betty  F.   (13  P.  D.,  330) ___  198 

Nichols,  Mary    (13  P.  D.,  286) 480 

Nixon   i\    Wichita   Land   and   Cattle 

Co.   (87  Tex.,  411) 401 

Noble,  Mary  E.   (14  P.  I).,  538) 280 

Noff  r.  Noff   (20  Mo.  Appeals,  182)  _  458 

North  r.  North  (1  Barb.  Ch.,  241 )__  245 

Northrop  r.  Knowles  (52  Conn.,  522)  292 

Norton,  John   (9  P.  D.,  382) 73 

Nutt  V.  Nutt  (14  P.  D.,  313) 22 


O. 


Ofifut  V.  John    (8  Mo.,   120;  40  Am. 

Dec,   and  note) 560 

O'Gara  i'.  Eisenlohr  (38  N.  Y.,  296)  _  416 

Oliver,  David   (7  P.  D.,  390) 368 

Order  No.  60   (Nov.  5,  1901) 274 

Osborn  v.  Allen  (2  Dutch.,  388) 43 

Osier  on   Practice  of  Medicine    (pp. 

176,    178) 316 

Owen  V.  Sims  (3  Cold.,  549) 514 


Page. 
32 
519 


P. 

Page,  Andrews  v.  (3  Heisfc.,  667 )_ 
Page,  Andrews  i\  (50  Tenn.,  653) 
Park,  Lessees  of,  Rogers  v.  (4  Hum., 

480)    33 

Parsons  v.  Grand  Lodge  A.  O.  U.  W^ 

(108    Iowa,    6)___" 174 

Patterson  r.  Gaines  (47  IT.  S.,  550)  _  536 

Patterson,  Frances  A.   (12  P.  D.,  29)  185 

Patterson,  Obed  A.  (8  P.  D.,  452)  __  318 
Patton    r.   Philadelphia    (1   La.   An., 

100)    .537 

Peace,  Daniel   (747  L.  B.  P.,  159) __  410 

Pence  v.  Garrison  (93  Ind.,  345) 280 

Peniston,  Susan  C.   (9  1'.  I).,  178)  __  27 

People,  Dixon  r.   (18  Mich.,  84) 231 

People.  Poole  v.  (24  Colo.  Rep.,  510)  254 

People  r.  Taber   (92  N.  Y.,  146) 414 

Pepper,  Helen  L.   (9  P.  D.,  500) 347 

Perkins,    Harvey,    minors   of    (13    P. 

D.,    414) 489' 

Phelan  v.  Phelan  (12  Fla.,  449) 472 

Phelan  v.  I'helan  (135  111.,  511) 18 

Pierce  v.  Pierce  (12  I\  D.,  412) 18,94 

Pierson,   minors  of  Allen   B.    (13   P. 

D.,    151) 384 

Plount,  Edward,  minor  of  (14  P.  I)., 

428)    _■ ^___   30,488 

Pingree  v.  Goodrich   (41  Vt.,  47) 512 

Polar   Star   Mutual    Benefit   Associa- 
tion V.  Boniface   (20  Weekly  Dig., 

522)    424 

Pomeroy   et  al.,   Tayler  v.    (8   Allen, 

Mass.,  488) 233 

Pomeroy,  Fanny  (i.   (13  I'.  D..  342 )_  .306 

Poole  V.  People  (24  Colo.  Rep.,  510)  254 

Post  V.  Post  (14  P.  D.,  177  > 138 

Potter's    Dwarris    on    Statutes    and 

Constitutions  : 

(p.  194,  note  13) 67 

(p.  203,  note  20» 73 

(p.  74,  note  4) 73 

Potter  V.  Clapp   (203  111.,  592) 187 

Powell  V.  Powell  (18  Kans.,  371)  __  473 

Powell  v.  Powell   (13  P.  D.,  236) 93 

Powers,  Mary  E.   (9  I'.  D.,  369) .546 

Price,  Heming  v.  (12  Mod.,  432)  ___  512 

B. 

Rafter;     Mary,     et     al.,     minors    of 

Michael  Madden   (7  P.  D.,  34)___  562 

Railroad   Co.    i'.    Cobb    (35    Ohio   S., 

94)    146 

Raish,  Tuttle  v.   (116  Iowa,  331) 174 

Randall  v.  Randall  (13  P.  D.,  411)_  98,560 

Rankin,  I^ewis  (11  P.  D.,  373) 73 

Ransom,  Albert  K.  (5  P.  D.,  183)  __  340 
Ratcliflfe,    Kathryne    A.     (11    P.    I).. 

171)    18,100,106,173,194 

Rathbone,   Hamilton   v.    (175   U.    S., 

419)    66 

Rawson  v.  Rawson  (156  Mass.,  578)  513 

Rebenstorf,  Christenia  (15  P.  D..  28)  384 
Records  of  War  of  Rebellion   (series 

III,  v/  3,  pp.  123,  661) 297 

Red  Rock  v.  Henry  (106  U.  S.,  596 »  436 


&2 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Page. 
Redbird,   Jack,   minor  of    (12   P.   D., 

517)    , 284,380 

Reed,  Fenton  v.  (4  Johns.,  51,  52)  __      245, 

293,  415 

Reed,  Rebecca  (13  P.  D.,.  70) 386 

Reese,    Joseph    A.     (731    P.    L.    B., 

238)    265,302 

Reese,  Sarah  I.  (7  P.  D.,  368) 62 

Relf  et  al.,  Gaines  v.  (53  U.  S.,  472)  537 
Rex    v.    Twining     (2    B.    and    Aid., 

386)    231,  262 

Reynolds,  Evans  v.  (32  Ohio  S.,  163)  146 
Richardson,  Nathan  (15  P.  D.,  76)  _  360 
Ridenour,  Newton  C.  (2  P.  D.,  348)  _  251 
Robinson    v.    Ruprecht    et    al.     (191 

111.,   424) 189 

Rodgers  v.   The  United  States    (185 

U.  S.,  87) 436 

Rogers     v.     Lessees     of     Parli      (4 

Hum.,  480) 83 

Rogers,  Williams  (9  P.  I).,  399) 334 

Rollins,  Lake  County  v.   (130  V.  S.. 

662)    66 

Rose  V.  Clarke  (8  Paige.  575) 293,418 

Rose  V.  Rose   (67  Mich..  619) 243 

Rothery   v.    Rothery    (11    I\    D..    77, 

377)    86,344,451,559 

Rumsey,     Hannah     A.     (14     P.     D., 

290)    45,229,509 

Ruprecht   et   al.,    Robinson    r.    (191 

111.,  424) 189 

Russ,  Mary  W.    (7  P.  D.,  382) 27 

Ryerson,  Annie  P.   (14  P.  D.,  497)  __       249 

8. 

Sanborn  and  Berryman's  Annotated 
Statutes  of  Wisconsin  (1889,  sec. 
2359,   p.   1.368) 472 

Schafberg    v.    Schafberg    (52    Mich., 

429)    473 

Scheube.  Diseases  of  Warm  Coun- 
tries           358 

Schlichter  v.  Schlichter  (10  Pa..  11)  _       472 

Schloesser,    Johnson     r.     (146    Ind.. 

509)    390 

Schmisseur  r.  Beatrie  (147  111..  210)        187 

Schoonover,  .John  H.   (8  P.  D.,  10)  __        318 

Schouler's   Domestic   Relations  : 

Sees.  37,  38 .17 

Sec.  237 84 

Sec.  224 388 

Schuchart    r.    Schuchart    (61    Kans., 

587)    214 

Schweitzer,  State  r.  (57  Conn.,  532 )_       292 

Scott,     Stringfellow     v.     (Rich.     Eq. 

Ca.,  109) 541 

Sedgwick  on  Construction  of  Statu- 
tory and  Constitutional  Law 
(195)    66 

Sellan  v.  Davis   (4  Yer.,  502) 34 

Sexton,  Fieldon  (15  P.  D.,  265) 302, 

333.  334 

Shafher  r.  State  (20  Ohio,  1) 226 

Shanaman,    Amelia    K.     (14    P.    D., 

530)    465 


Shannon's     Code,     Tennessee,     sees. 

4201,  4218 50S 

Shannon,  Andrew  J.   (7  P.  D.,  64)__  368 
Sharer,    David   S.,    minors   of    (9    P. 

D.,    189)    80 

Sharp  V.  Johnson  (22  Ark.,  79) 224 

Shattuck,  .Joseph   (7  P.  D.,  54) 546 

Sheets,  Oilman  v.   (78  Iowa,  499) 174 

Sheldon  r.  Sheldon   (13  P.  D.,  .542).  15 
Simmons,.   Andrews    v.     (68     Miss., 

732)    12 

Simmons     r.     Simmons     (47     Mich., 

253)    556 

Sims,  Owen  v.   (3  Cold.,  549.) 514 

Slagle  r.  Slagle   (11  P.'D.,  260) 343 

Sloman,  Bennett  (70  N.  H.,  290) ___  261 

Smith  r.  Combs  (4  Dick.,  420) 43 

Smith    V.    Hopkins    (120    Fed.    Rep., 

921)    219 

Smith  V.  Knowlton  (11  N.  H.,  191)-  260 

Smith  V.  Smith  (4  R.  I.,  370) 85 

Smith  V.  Smith   (13  P.  D.,  177) 18 

Smith  r.  Smith  (43  La.  An.,  1140)__  534 

Smith,  Joseph  K.   (8  P.  D.,  9) 326 

Smith,  Susan  (12  P.  D.,  180) 478 

Snowman,    Charles    W.     (12    P.    D.. 

118)    61 

Spelling    on    Injunctions    and    Other 

Extraordinary  Remedies  (v.  2,  ch. 

43,  sees.  1380,  1433) 477 

Spencer.  Letitia  C.  A.  (13  P.  D.,  68)  _  249 

Spurck.  Manning  r.   (199  111.,  447 )_  186 

Squire  v.  State    (40  Ind..  459) 231 

Stewart   v.   Vandervort    (34   W.   Va., 

524)    449 

Still,  minors  of  James  (12  P.  I)..  25 )_  384 
Stack,  mother  of  John  G.    (2  P.  D., 

153)    .306 

State  V.  Armington   (25  Minn.,  29) _  239 

State  r.  Britton    (4   McC.   256) 541 

State,  Brothers  r.    (42  Tenn.,  201 )_  516 

State  V.  Bruening  (60  Mo.  App.,  51 )_  559 

State.  Bushaw  v.  (2  Yer.,  ) 33 

State,  Carmichael  v.   (12  Ohio,  n.  s., 

553) 145 

State  V.  Doyle   (68  Mo.  App.,  219) _  559 

State,  Elwell  v.   (6  Yer..  364) 33 

State  V.  Hilton   (3  Rich.,  4.34) 541 

State  r.  Linck  (68  Mo.  App.,  161 )__  559 

State,  McReynolds  v.  (5  Cold.,  630) _  33 

State,  McReynolds  r.  (45  Tenn.,  18)  _  519 

State  V.  Schweitzer  (57  Conn.,  532 )__  292 

State,   Shafher  v.    (20   Ohio.   1) 220 

State,  Squire  v.   (40  Ind.,  459) 231 

State,    Swartz    r.     (13    Ohio    C.    C. 

Rep.,  02) 140 

State  v.  Walker   (36  Kans.,  297) ___  145 

State  r.  Whaley   (10  S.  C,  500)  ___  541 

State  V.  Wilson   (117  Mo.,  570) 454 

State    r.    Worthingham    (23    Minn., 

528) 238 

State  r.  Wright   (134  Mo.,  404)____  457 

Stetzell,  Frances  (9  P.  D..  9) 409 

Stewart  on  Marriage  and  Divorce  : 

Sec.  127 256 

Sec.  253 17 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


93 


Vage 
Stewart  on  Marriage  and  Divorce — 
Continued. 

Sec.  252 34.3 

Stewart  v.   Vandervort    (34   W.   Va., 

524)    310 

Still,  James  H.,  minor  of  (12  P.  D., 

25)    28 

Stine,  Jasper  M.     (9  P.  D.,  488) 526 

Stocljwell,     Sarah     O.     (10     P.     D., 

428)    185,  196 

Stone,   William,   alias   William   Sem- 

ple  or  Sample  (15  P.  D.,  116> 528 

Story,  Conflict  of  Laws   (p.  10) 66 

Stringfellow  v.  Scott  (Rich..  Eq.  Ca., 

109)    541 

Strunk  v.  Strunk    (14  P.  D.,  17)___        138 

Stuart,  Fanny  (14  P.  D.,  502) 439 

Sullivan,  John,  widow  of  (10  P.  D., 

55)    73 

Summerlin    v.    Livingstone    (15    La. 

An.,     519) 535 

Sutherland    on    Statutory    Construc- 
tion: 

Sees.   133,  322,  323 72 

Sec.     309 73 

Sec.    429 85 

Sec.     246 167 

Sec.     219 278 

Sec.     223 278 

Sec.     121 435 

Sees.    137,   138 435 

Swan  V.  Harrison  (2  Cold.,  535) 514 

Swann,  Margaret  M.  (8  P.  D.,  149)-  27,44 
Swartz    V.    State     (13    Ohio    C.    C. 

Rep.,  62)   146 

Swepston    v.    Swepston    (15    P.    D., 

82)    383 


Taber,  People  v.   (92  N.  Y.,  146) ___       414 

Taylor,  in  re   (9  Paige,  610) 293,419 

Taylor  v.  Mayhew  (11  Heis.,  596)  __  516 
Taylor    <;.    Taylor    (10   Colo.,   Ct.   of 

Ap.,    303)     254 

Taylor  r.  Taylor  (15  P.  D.,  90) 557 

Taylor,  Annie  (14  P.  D.,  71 )_  199,282,295 
Teeple  et  al.,  Wenning  et  al.  r.   (114 

Ind.,  189)    231 

Tenneas,    Jermann   v.    (39    La.    An., 

1021)    534 

Teter  v.  Teter  (101  Ind.,  129) 231 

Thomas,  Margaret  L.  (9  P.  D.,  139) _        242 

Thomas,  Peggy   (13  P.  D.,  98) 530 

Thompson   v.  Isk   (99  Mo.,  106) 456 

Thompson,     Jennette      (14     P.     D., 

469) 140, 249 

Thomson,  Tolliver  (8  P.  I).,  390)  __  62,363 
Thornley  v.   United   States    (113   U. 

S.,  310) 66 

Thornton,  Meta   (widow)    (11  P.  D., 

21) 162,  313,  547 

Thornton,  Meta   (widow)    (15  P.  D., 

312) 351 

Throop  on  Public  Officers  (sec.  797) _  477 
Tilton  V.  Tilton  (13  P.  D.,  363) 135 


Tobin,  in  re  (15  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.,  749) 

Travers,  Alice  E.  (1  P.  D.,  110) 

Treaty,  Mexican  War  (Feb.  2,  1848). 

Tubbs,  Martin  (1  P.  D.,  187) 

Tuttle  V.  Raish  (110  Iowa,  331)  ___ 
Twining,  Rex  v.  (2  B.  and  Aid.,  386) 
Tyler   v.    Pomeroy    et    al.    (8    Allen, 

Mass.,    488) 

Tyson's  Practice  of  Medicine  (1900) 


Page. 
349 
306 
313 
560 
174 
231 


233 
357 


U. 

Underbill,  Greensborough  v.   (12  Vt., 

604) 231 

United   States  v.   Black    (128   U.   S., 

40) 477 

United  States  v.  Bowen   (100  U.  S., 

508) 314,353     , 

United   States    v.   Claflin    (97   U.    S., 

456) 436 

United  States,  Coffey  v.   (116  U.  S., 

443) 559 

United  States  v.  De  Amador   (16  N. 

Mex.,  173) 393 

United  States  v.  Freight  Association 

(166  U.  S.,  290,  318) 67 

United  States,  Frisbe  v.   (157  U.  S., 

166) 185 

United  States  v.   Hays   (20  Fed.  R., 

710) 245 

United   States   v.    Lancaster    (2   Mc- 
Lean, 431) 347 

United  States,  Mitchell  v.   (88  U.  S., 

352) 58 

United  States,  The,  Rodgers  v.   (185 

U.   S.,  87) 436 

United   States,  Thornley  v.    (113  U. 

S.,  310) ^—         66 

United  States  Trust  Co.  v.  Maxwell 

(57  N.  Y.  Supp.,  53) 416 


Valentine,  Barker  v.  (125  Mich.,  336)        243 
Vandervort,  Stewart  v.    (34  W.  Va., 

524) 310,  449 

Van  Dusan  v.  Van  Dusan  (97  Mich., 

70) 

Van  Huff,  Elizabeth   (7  P.  D.,  474; 

Viers,  John   (14  P.  D.,  552) 

Vining,  Rebecca  C.   (9  P.  D.,  362). 


243 
335 
332 
318 


W. 


Wagner,  Caroline   (12  P.  D.,  134) __  208 

Walker,  State  v.   (36  Kans.,  297)—  145 

Walker,  Isaac   (15  P.  D.,  198) 281 

Walton  V.  Walton   (32  Barb.,  203)  _  473 
War    of    Rebellion    Records     (Series 

in,  V.  3,  pp.  123,  661) 297 

Ward  well    v.    Wardwell    (14    P.    D., 

234) 138 

Warwick  v.  Cooper   (5  Sneed,  660)  _  32 
Watson,      Commonwealth       i\       (97 

562) 85 


94 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Watt,  Anderson  c.  (138  U.  S.,  694) _  461 

Waymlre  r.  .letmore  ('22  O.  St.,  271)  308 
Wenning  et  al.   r.   Teeple   (114  Ind., 

189) 231 

Whalen,  Anna  M.    (9  1'.  D.,  346) ___  368 

Whaley,  State  r.   (10  S.  C,  500)  ___  541 

Wballan,  Jessie  M.  (8  P.  D.,  131)  __  306 
Wharton    on    Evidence     (v.    2,    sec. 

1323) 480 

Whelan.  Bridget  (14  P.  D.,  380) 118 

White,  Locljhart  r.   (18  Tex.,  102)  __  400 

White  r.  White   (82  Cal.,  427) 245 

White  i:  White  (14  I'.  I).,  313) 57 

Wichita  Land  and  Cattle  Co.,  Nixon 

V.    (87   Tex.,   411) 401 

Williams,  Esther  S.  (7  1'.  D.,  327)—  27,53 

Williams,  John  S.   (10  P.  D.,  169) __  73 

Williamson,  Wm.  C.  (8  P.  D.,  372) _  27 
Willie  V.  Wilson,  alias  Willie  (14  P. 

D.,   43) 239 

Wilson,  State  v.  (117  Mo.,  570)  ___  454 
Wilson,  alias  Willie,  Willie  v.  (14  P. 

D.,    43) 239 

Wilson,  William  (10  P.  D.,  232) 396 

^yilson,  William  L.   (4  P.  D.,  473)  __  569 

Winship  c.  Connor  (42  N.  H.,  341 )_  261 

Witz,  Martha  E.  A.  (15  P.  D.,  208) _  418 


Page. 

Woehl,  J.  E.    (13  P.  D.,  355) 382 

Wood,  Cargile  v.   (63  Mo.,  501) 86 

Woodward,  Mary  A.   (15  I'.  D.,  253)  493 
Woolworth,  Alexander,  widow  of   (4 

L.   B.   P.,   65) 62 

Worcester  v.  Georgia   (6  I'et.,  515)  _  283 
Worthingham,    State    v.    (23    Minn., 

528) 238 

Wright,  State  v.  (134  Mo.,  404) 457 

Wright  r.  Wright   (48  How.  Pr.,  1)_  416 
Wyman  on  Administrative  Laws  (sec. 

35) 477 


Y. 


Yates  r.  Houston   (3  Tex.,  433) 175, 

231,  245,  400 
Yerwood,  Nathan  (13  I'.  D.,  140)  ___       387 

Yokel,   Charles    (8   P.   D.,  431) 334 

Young,  Jas.  H.    (1   P.  D.,  445) 251 

Young,  Joseph  H.  (776  L.  B.  P.,  227)        410 


Z. 


Zoellner  v.  Zoellner  (46  Mich.,  511)- 
Zwickey  r.  Haney  (63  Wis.,  464)  ___ 


556 
473 


LAWS  CITED  AND  CONSTRUED. 


United  States  Statutes  at  Large. 


1790, 
1795, 
1802, 
1812, 
1813, 
1813, 
1814, 
1842, 

3  847, 


1850, 
1850, 
1850, 
1855, 

1856, 
1857, 
1861, 


I'age. 
April  30,  enlistment 527 

March   3,   enlistment 527 

March   16,  enlistment 527 

January   11,  »mlistment 527 

January  20,  enlistment 527 

January   29,  enlistment 527 

December    10.   enlistment 527 

August    11    (5    Stat.    L.,    504), 

service 26 

February  11  : 
Bounty  land — 

Construction    561 

Service,  widow's  title 312 

legal  representa- 
tives          561 

June    17,    bounty,   distant   sta- 
tion            119 

September     26,     bounty     land, 

service    62 

September     28,     bounty     land, 

service    563 

March  3  : 

Bounty  land — 

Construction 561 

Service 27,  62,  147 

Widow's    title—  312,  351,  561 
May   14    (sec.   5),   widows,  act 

of  March  3,  1855 568 

March  3,  widows,  act  of  March 

3,    1855 567 

July  22,  bounty 118 


1862, 
1855, 
1862, 
1862, 
1862, 


1863, 
1864, 


1866, 


1866, 
1871, 


1872, 
1873, 


1877, 
1881, 


I'age. 
February   13,   age,   oath  of  en- 
listment     8,525 

March  3,  bounty  land,  service-        27, 
62,  147 
July   14,   service,  joint  resolu- 
tion July  16,  1862 368 

July  16,  joint  resolution,  serv- 
ice           368 

July  17  : 

Act  June  27,  1890,  service, 

colored    troops 198,281 

Bounty 110 

December  23,  bounty 119 

January  13,  bounty 11J> 

March  3,  bounty 119 

June  20,  bounty 120 

July  4,  bounty 121 

treaty,  United  States  with 
Choctaws  and  Chicka- 
saws,  marriage  and  di- 
vorce           284 

July  28,  bounty 121 

February    14,    widows,    act   of 

March   3,    1855 566 

April  22,  bounty 121 

December  1   (see  2425  to  2430, 

K.  S.),  widow's  title 353 

March  3   (see  1890,  June  27), 

disloyalty    338 

February  26,  payment  of  pen- 
sion   ___ 431 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


95 


Page. 
1882,  July  25   (4698J,  R.  S.).  inspec- 
tion of  papers 169 

1882,  August  7,  amending  sec.  4702, 
R.  S. : 
Adulterous  cohabitation — 

Dependent   mother ;i.'ir» 

Forfeiture,  minors'  title         28 

Reformation    00 

Restoration,      estoppel. 

minors    47,48 

Restoration,      termina- 
tion,   minors 48 

Termination  of  widow's 

pension '.Mil 

Marriage — 

Age  of  consent 225 

Arkansas   laws  _   228,  488,  540 

California   laws UKi 

Choctaw    Nation,    citi- 
zenship,   impediment       283 
Civil    code.    Code    Na- 
poleon     226,530 

Cohabitation     and     re- 
pute     86,  464,  493 

Colorado    laws 253,  493 

Connecticut   laws 290 

Decree  of  nullity — 

Evidence 503 

Fraud,    reimburse- 
ment         286 

Jurisdiction 286, 

470,    503 
Limitation,   vested 

rights 227 

Ohio,  jurisdiction-       286 

Residence 470 

Reservation 470,  503 

Divorce — 

Collusion    553 

Colorado    laws 555 

Decree,     a    mensa 

et  thoro 128 

Indiana 

laws  ___  229,278 
New       York 

laws 278 

rendition   of  _       278 
res  judicata   278,  553 

Estoppel 552 

Evidence    229,240 

Fraud 211,  553 

Judgment 278 

Jurisdiction 470,  553 

Presumption    __   174,  186,  229 
Record,  finding. __       27S 

Remarriage 86,493 

Res  judicata 553 

Domicile 308,  348 

Estoppel 143 

Evidence 30,  41, 

86,  103,  174,  186,  208,  211, 

223,  230,  236,  240,  290,  392. 

399,  413,  464,  493,  495,  540 

Good   faith 208,  211 


rage. 
1882,  August  7,  amending  sec.  4702, 
R.   S. — Continued. 
Marriage — Continued. 

Illicit  cohabitation,  pre- 
sumption of  continu- 
ance          240 

Illinois    laws—   186,  236,  290 

Impediment     208, 

211,  253,  283,  290,  413, 
'  462,  488,  530,  540,  543 

Indiana   laws 229,  278 

Iowa    laws 174 

Kansas  laws : 211 

Legitimacy 211,  386,  488 

Louisiana   laws 530 

Maryland   laws 464 

Massachusetts   laws__   90,  462 

Michigan    laws 240,553 

Minnesota    laws :       230 

Minors,  legitimacy 488 

Mississippi  laws 11 

Missouri    laws 80,240 

Nebraska  laws 211 

New  Hampshire  laws_  90,  258 

New  Jersey  laws  . 41 

New  Mexico  laws 392 

New  York  laws 130, 

?08,  227,  290 
New  Y'ork,  divorce,  re- 
marriage           413 

Ohio  laws__   143,  225,  280,  308 

Pennsylvania  laws 495 

Place  of  contract 308 

Presumption  of  ca- 
pacity          223 

Presumption,evidence  230,  413 
Presumption  of  death.        41, 
103,  253,  258,  495 
Presumption  of  divorce      174, 
186,  230,  540 
Presumption    of    legal- 
ity   399,413 

Putative   marriage 530 

Retroactive   laws 462 

Rhode  Island  laws 543 

Second  marriage 540 

Separation,     decree     a 

mensa  et  thoro_^ 128 

South     Carolina    laws, 

colored  persons 411,  540 

Tennessee  laws,  slaves  30,  503 
Vested     rights,     decree 

of   nullity 227 

Voidable   marriage 447 

Texas   laws 399 

West  Virginia  laws 308 

Voidable  marriage-       447 

Wisconsin    laws 470 

1882,  August  7  :    " 

Desertion,   removal  of 70 

1882,  August  7  : 

Payment,       insane       p  e  n  - 

sioner 272,  430 

1882,  August  8  : 

Payment — 

Dependency 270 


96 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


1882,  August  8 — Continued.  Page. 

Payment — Continued. 

Insane  pensioner,  Gov- 
ernment Hospital  for 

the  Insane 430 

1884,  July  5  : 

Desertion,  removal 70 

Discharge,  faithful  service.       439 

1886,  May  17,  desertion,  removal 70 

1887,  January  29,  Mexican  war  : 

Service 158,543 

Widow,  remarriage 103 

dependence    324 

1888,  July  20,  bounty 121 

1888,  August  14  : 

Honorable  discharge 437 

Removal  of  charge  of  de- 
sertion,   fee 1 319 

1888,  August  27,  deafness,  rate,  in- 
crease          207 

1890,  June  27  : 

Attorneys — 

Pee,  contract 184 

material  service 492 

nec€issary  service  _       318 
removal  of  charge 

of  desertion 318 

see.  4707 100,106 

Neglect 359 

Power  of  attorney 317 

Practice,  sec.  4707 172 

Recognition    317,  359 

Res  judicata,  sec.  4707-        172 
Commencement — 

Minors    79 

Widows    328 

Dependent  relatives,  adul- 
terous cohabitation 335 

Attorneys — 

Limitation,  sec. 
4707  ;  res  judi- 
cata            172 

D  ecla ration, 

amendment 18, 

100,  106 

Election 18,  100,  106,  194 

Limitation,  sec.  4707 194 

Desertion,  discharge  {see 
1902,  July  1,  joint  reso- 
lution). 

Length  of  service 8,  525 

Military  age 548 

D  i  s  a  b  i  1  i  ty.   Confederate 

service ^ 76 

Honorable     discharge     {see 
joint    resolution    of    July 
1,   1902). 
Evidence,    death,    presump- 
tion           41 

Joint  resolution  July  1, 
1902— 

Declaration,      date     of 

filing 8 

Desertion,  discharge  __        63, 
94,  277,  437 


1890,  June  27 — Continued.  Page. 

Joint     resolution     July     1, 
1902 — Continued. 
Disability  contracted  in 
Confederate     s  e  r  v  - 

ice 369 

Disloyalty,    subsequent 

Confederate   service-       337 
Marriage  {sec  1882,  August 

7,  marriage). 
Minors — 

Aid    and    attendance 407 

Commencement 79 

Title 28 

Payment,  guardians,  juris- 
diction  State  court 364 

Practice — 

Appeal,    rerating,    dis- 
missal — -265,  299,  332,  333 

Declarations 486 

Presumption  of  death 41 

Remarriage,  decree  of  nul- 
lity dropping,  restora- 
tion          329 

Restoration    475 

Service- — 

Acts  of  July  27,  1892, 

June  27,  1902 25 

Appointed  man 215 

Drafted    man,  com- 
mencement   232,  548 

Length  of  service 340,  548 

Colored    troops 198, 

281,  294 

Masters  and  mates 366 

Officer,  enlisted  man-_       277 
Western     gunboat     flo- 
tilla         366 

Termination  of  war  of  re- 
bellion (service  of  col- 
ored   troops) 198,281,294 

Vicious  habits,  jurisdiction 
of  Commissioner,  opinions 

of   other   departments 427 

Widows  and  minors — 

Commencement, minors-         79 
widows       328 
Dependence — 

Means    of    sup- 
port     257,329 

Contract    for    sup- 
port       257 

Cessation    of    sup- 
port           329 

Dropping,  cessation   of 

dependence 329 

Restoration,  date  of  re- 
newal   -       329 
period     o  f 
n  onde- 
pendence       329 
Title 28 

1892,  July   27    {see   1902,    June   27, 

Indian  wars), 

1893,  January  5  : 

Mexican  war — 

Fee,  rerating,  fund 273 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


97 


1893,  January  5 — Continued.  Page. 
Mexican  war — Continued. 
Service,    dropping,    res- 
toration            158 

1893,  December    21,     notice,    drop- 

ping     475,478 

1894,  July  18,  inspection  of  papers-       169 

1895,  March!  2,  rate,  combined,  prac- 

tice           550 

1896,  Marcli     13,     presumption     of 

death,  application  of  law_       347 
1899,    March    2,    Mexican    war,    dis- 

cliarge,  lionorable 69 

1899,  March  3  : 

Desertion — 

Cruelty,    Insanity 450 

National     S  o  1  d  i  e  r  s' 

Home,   construction.       221 

Res  judicata 557 

Retroactive  laws 342 

Divorce,    estoppel 38 

Domicile 14 

Evidence    14 

Marriage  (sec  1882,  August 

7,   marriage) 246 

Marriage  and  divorce — 

Divorce,      decree,      res 

judicata    90,  38 

Jurisdiction,  estop- 
pel   90,  38 

Remarriage,     minor, 

vested   right 82 

Estoppel 143,  246 

Minor,    remarriage,    vested 

right 82 

character   of   aban- 
doned   wife 382 

Moral  character — 

Evidence 21,  123,  136 

Remarriage    136 

•Necessitous    circum- 

stances     246, 496 

Payment,  Soldiers'  Home.   132,  143 

Practice,  notice 132 

appeals-  96,  111,  218,  298 
Remarriage,    minor,    vested 

right     82 

Remarriage,      moral      char- 
acter         136 

Soldiers'   Home,  desertion  132,  143 

Special    examination 14 

Vested  right,  minors 82 

1900,  April  4,  examination  of  papers       167 
1900,  May  9  : 

Act  January   29,   1887,  de- 
pendence           324 

Commencement,  widow 328 

Dependence,    practice 127,  203 

Desertion,   discharge 63 

Discharge,    dishonorable 

discharge     .- 378 

Evidence    203 

Increase 300 

Marriage    (see    1882,    Aug. 
7,  Marriage). 

13070—06 7 


1900,  May  9 — Continued.  Page. 

Practice,  dependence 127,  203 

Service,     dishonorable     dis- 
charge           378 

Terms   of   rejection 203 

1900,  May  24,  removal  of  charge  of 

desertion.     Fee 319 

1901,  March  3  : 

Restoration — 

Construction 381 

Marriage — 

Decree  of  nul- 
lity    286,503 

Divorce,    decree    a 

mensa  et  thoro_       128 
Presumption        of 
death,  lex  domi- 
cilii        347 

New  grant 331 

Remarriage,    divorce 446 

Sepai-ation,    divorce 128 

1902,  March      10,      examination      of 

papers 167 

1902,  June  27  : 

Indian  wars — 
Service —  ' 

Cay  use    Indians, 

Oregon 396 

Cherokee  disturb- 
ances     23,  44,  130 

Declarations 23 

Discharge,  honor- 
able, act  of 
June   27,    1890_       201 

Evidence    44,  396 

Florida     394 

Length   of   service         44 

Modoc    124 

Record    50,  51 

Sabine  disturb- 
ances             44 

State  organiza- 
tions      23,  130 

Texas     and     New 

Mexico 375 

1902,  July  1  : 

Joint  resolution — 

Appointed    man    215 

Bounty  or  gratuity.  116,  525 
Declarations,    date    of 

filing    8 

Desertion,   discharge  _        63, 
94,  525 
Disability  in  Confeder- 
ate service 337 

Disloyalty,    subsequent 

Confederate  service-       337 
Enlisted  man,  officer-  94,  276 

Faithful  service 437 

Honorable   discharge  215,  437 

Military  age 8,525 

Revised     Statutes, 

claims  under  _^ — ..         63 


98 


PENSION  "AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 
Page. 


1002,  July  1— Continued. 

Joint  resolution — Cont'd. 
Service,      enlisted      or 
appointed          man, 
''similar     con- 
tracts "     

1903,  January  15,  deafness,  rate,  in- 
crease   


276 
207 


•age. 


1003,  March  2  : 

Amputation ;     artificial 

limb    402 

Construction   of  law 402 

1905,  February  20,  payment  of  pen- 
sion         437 


Sections  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States. 


1116. 
1117. 
1118. 
2418. 
2419. 
2424. 
2425. 

2426. 
2427. 
2428. 

2429. 
2430. 


4693. 
4698i 
4701. 
4702. 


4704. 
4704. 


Page. 

Enlistment,    minors    526 

Enlistment,  minors 526 

Enlistment,    minors    526 

Bounty  land '-  310 

Widows,  act  of  March  3,  1855-  568 

Bounty    land    312 

Bounty  land,   service 62 

Construction    561 

Bounty   land,   service 62 

Bounty   land,   service 62 

Bounty   land,   service 62 

Construction    561 

Bounty   land,   service 62 

Bounty  land  : 

Construction     561 

Service    62 

Widow's  title 312,351 

Service    27,368 

Inspection   of   papers 169 

Indian  wars,  length  of  service  46 
Legitimacy,       application       of 

law    387 

Practice,    declarations    486 

Widows,  act  of  March  3,  1855_  566 
Legitimacy,      application      of 

law   387 

Marriage,   Arkansas 488 


4705. 
4707. 


4708. 


4716. 


4738. 
4766. 


4832. 
5597. 


Page. 
Minox's     of     colored     soldiers, 

legitimacy 386 

Act     of     January     29,     1887, 

dependence 324 

Dependent  relatives — 
Attorneys — 

fee,   act  of  June,  27, 

1890    100,  106 

practice,      limitation, 

election     172 

res  judicata 172 

Cessation  of  dependency-       331 
Declaration,     amendment, 

election     18,  100,  106 

Election,    limitation 194 

Remarriage,  minor's  title 28 

termination   of 
widow's     p  e  n  - 

sion    331 

See  1902,  July  1,  joint  resolu- 
tion, disloyalty. 
Widows,  act  of  March  3,  1855       566 

See  1899,  March  3 342 

Payment — amended  by  act  of 

August   7,   1882 271,431 

Payment  of  pension 431 

Bounty  land,  act  of  February 

11,   1847 313 


State  Statutes. 


I'age. 
California,  Civil  Code,  sec.  61,  mar- 
riage             103 

Colorado,  Gen.  Stats.  (1883),  sees. 
484,  485,  1095,  divorce,  jurisdic- 
tion         555 

Choctaw  Nation  : 

Chap.    7,   sec.    1   of   laws — mar- 
riage         283 

Chap.  9,  sees.  1,  2,  3  of  laws — 

marriage    285 

Constitution,   Art.   VII,  sec.   24, 

divorce    285 

Connecticut : 

Laws  of  1640,  1649,  1702,  1783, 

1847,    1855,    marriage 292 

Gen.  Stats.  Rev,  1902,  marriage       292 
Gen.  Stats.,  Title  14,  ch.  1,  sec. 

5,  Rev.  1875,  marriage 292 

Gen.  Stats.,  Title  13,  ch.  1,  sec. 
•     10,  Rev,  1866,  marriage ^      292 


I'age. 
Indiana,    Stats.,    sec.    1946,   divorce. 

guardianship  of  minors 392 

Kentucky,  act  of  February  14,  1866, 

marriage  of  slaves,  legitimacy 387 

Louisiana  : 

Civil  Code,  art.  94,  marriage  and 

divorce   (13  P.  D.,  102) 538 

Article  133 539 

Massachusetts  : 

Act  May   29,   1895,   Rev.   Laws, 

1902,  ch.  151,  sec.  6,  marriage         93 
Laws,  1896,  ch.  499,  marriage. _       463 
Pub.  Stat.,  ch.  147,  sec.  33,  sep- 
arate  maintenance,   divorce —         93 
Minnesota  : 

5762  Stats.,  marriage 238 

Gen.  Stats,  of  1878,  marriage—       239 
Mississippi,  act  of  November  25,  1865. 

sec.  3,  slave  marriage------ r — r         II 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


99 


I'age. 
Missouri : 

Rev.  Stats.   (1809)  — 

Sees.      1861,     4327,     aban- 
doned    wife 557 

Sec.  2921,  cause  for  divorce       458 
New  Hampshire,  Pub.  Stats.,  cli.  188, 
sec.     17  ;     ch.     273,    sec.     6 ;     pre- 
sumption of  deatli 259 

New  .Jersey,  Nixon's  Digest  of  Laws, 
p.   234,   marriage,   presumption   of 

death     42 

New  Yorlc  : 

Civii   Code,   Pro.,   sec.    1762,  di- 
vorce, decree  a  mensa  et  thoro       129 
Rev.  Stats.,  sec.  6,  ch.  8,  art.  1, 

p.    2332,    marriage 138 

Rev.   Stats.,  Title  1,  art.   1,  ch. 

8,  pt.  2,  divorce 414 

Ohio  : 

Acts  of  .January  6,  1824,  May 
5,  1869,  February  10."  1870, 
marriage,  age  of  consent 225 


I'age. 
Ohio — Continued. 

Bates'  Annotated  Statutes,  sees. 
6384,    6392,    6393,    marriage, 

age   of  consent 226 

Rhode    Island,    general    laws    1896, 

chap.  191,  sec.  5 543 

South  Carolina  : 

Civil  Code  of  1893,  sec.  2160___        541 

Statutes  of  1902,  sec.  2661 541 

Tennessee  : 

Act  of  May  26,  1866,  marriage 

of  slaves 30,503,518 

Shannon's  Code,  sees.  4201,  4218, 

marriage  and  divorce 509,  516 

West  Virginia  : 

Code,  ch.  64,  sec.  1,  marriage-  308,  447 

Code,  ch.  64,  sec.  4,  marriage 310 

Code    (1860),    ch.    109,    sec.    1, 

marriage     447 

Wisconsin,   Stats.,  2330,   2348,  2349, 

2886,  marriage,  nullity 474 


TABLE  OF  CASES  OVERRULED  OR  MODIFIED. 


[From  Vol.  1  to  Vol.  15,  inclusive.] 


Cases  reported. 


Where  overruled  or 
modified. 


A. 

Aab,  George  (9  P.  D.,  377) 

Adams,  Peter  (2  P.  D.,  46) 

Ammerman,  William  M.  (1  P.  D.,  5) 

Anderson,  Margaret  J.  (4  P.  D.,  67);  see  also  6  P.  D.,200;  7  P.  D.,468;  9  P.  D., 
497:  12P.  D.,  134 

Armstrong,  Jasper  N.  (14  P.  D.,  285),  modified 

Auringer,  Constantia  V.  (8  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  247) 

B. 

Backof,  widow  of  Frank  (2P.  D.,  o.  s.,  259) 

Baltzer,  George  (10  P.  D.,  37),  modified  (text  21) 

Barclay,  Pension  Agent  (5  P.  D.,  175),  contra 

Barleyoung,  John  (7P.  D.,  453);  see  14  P.  D.,  71 

Boswell,  minor  of  Sanford  (6  P.  D.,  2*5);  see  7  P.  D.,  54.5;  14  P.  D.,  288 

Brookman,  George  H.  (7  P.  D.,  260) 

Bryant,  Charles  J.  (7  P.  D.,  299),  modified 

Brown,  Harriette,  widow  Charles  F.  (3  P.  D.,  92);  see  also  11  P.  D.,  301. 

Brunz,  Anton  (8P.  D.,  344) 

Burton,  Jennette  (9  P.D.,31);  see  afeo  14  P.  D.,  428 

Burton,  Morris  (7  P.  D.,  188) 

Burton,  Reuben  (IIP.  D.,  294),  modified  in  part. 

C. 

Campbell,  Mark  G.  (8  P.  D.,  208),  overruled  in  part 

Chase,  Sarah  N.  (7  P.  D.,543),  overruled  in  part 

Coburn,  Mary  (2  P.  D.,  80) 

Coburn,  William  T.  (7  P.  D.,182) 

Coffey,  George  W.  (4  P.  D., 285). 

Cole,  Russel  S.  (4P.D.,141) 

Colgin,  Susan  (5 P.  D.,  137) ,. 


11  P.  D.,  49. 
5  P.  D., 351. 
3P.D.,1. 

12  P.  D..  278. 
14  P.  D.,  420. 
6P.D.,10. 


4P.D.,77. 

12  P.  D., 17. 

6  P.  D.,  205,  297;  7  P. 
D.,  78. 


9  P.  D.,  147. 

8P.  D.,  162;  9  P.  D. 
93. 

13  P.  D.,  184. 

9  P.  D.,  108. 

13  P.  D.,  90. 

8  P.  D., 316. 

15  P.  D., 503. 


14  P.  D.,  106. 
10  P.  D.,  249. 
4P.D.,62. 
8  P.  D.,  316. 
7  P.  D,  229. 

7  P.  D., 270. 

8  P.  D.,  316. 


lUO 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


Table  of  cases  overruled  or  modified — Continued. 


Cases  reported. 


Where  overruled  or 
modified. 


Collins,  Frances H.  (6P.  D.,  257) 7P.D.,2a9, 


Collins,  Richard  C,  alias  Edward  Crossweight  (125  L.  B.,  82).. 

Communication  (6  P.  D.,283)  .- 

Comstock,  Harriet  (10  P.  D. ,  220),  overruled  in  part 

Coney,  John  G.  (2  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  a5) 

Conroy,  mother  of  James  B.  (3  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  477) 

Cox,  Mary  A.  (3  P.  D.,  313;  see  11  P.  D.,  62,  901) 

Crain,  minors  of  Joseph  (4  P.  D.,358) 

Crider,  Malinda  L.  (7  P.  D.,  462),  overruled  (act  Mar,  13, 1896) 

Darling,  Elizabeth  (10  P.  D.,  244  and  399),  overruled  in  part . . . 

Davinney,  Henry  (5  P.  D.,  288);  see  also  9  P.  D.,  382 

Davis,  Margaret  A.  (14  P.  D.,  408).  overruled  in  part  -. 

Dick,  Robert  M.  (3  P.  D.,  333),  modified 

Dickenson,  Manco  C,  widow  of  (6L.  B.  P.,  318) 

Dorlas,  Nancy  J.  (5  P.  D.,  230) _... 

Downing,  widow  of  James  M.  (4  P.  D.,  222),  modified 

Dyer,  David  H.  (9  P.  D.,  87),  modified 


E. 

Eckerson,  Theodore  J.  (IL.  B.  ''Qa,"98) 

Eding,  Charles  H.  (5  P.  D.,  234).... 

Evans,  Cynthia  A.  (5  P.  D.,  188),  oveiTuled  in  part 

F. 

Palkenburg,  De  Witt  C.  (3P.  D.,  336) 

Fane,  Amanda  (10  P.  D.,  254) 

Fitzpatrick,  minors  of  Patrick  (5  P.  D.,  248) 

Friel,  James  E.  (1  P.  D.,  329)  contra;  see  also  s.  c,  6  P.  D.,  209 

G. 

Gabriel,  Francoise  (12  P.  D.,  382) 

Gannon,  Elizabeth  A.  (3P.  D.,  67) 

Garman,  Mary  A.  (3P.  D.,  179) 

Garrison,  Daniel  B.  (6  P.  D.,  289),  overruled  in  part 

Gateson,  minor  Joseph  (5  P.  D.,  417) 

Geddings,  Esther  (36  Fee  P.  L.  B.,  374) 

Gerard,  Wesley  C.  (L.  B.  "Ma,"  103) 

Germain,  Louisa  C.  (lOP.  D.,393) 

Gilbert,  Margaret  (8  P.  D.,  249),  overruled  in  part  and  modified  in  part. 

Gillian,  child  of  David,  claim  No.  231,593,  May  11,  1894 

Gilliland,  Eliza  (6  P.  D.,  257),  overruled  in  part. 

Gillman,  Margaret  (9  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  310) 

Glenn,  Wellington  (5  P.  D.,  284),  overruled  in  principle 

Graves,  minor  Jas.  R.  (211  L.  B.  P.,  259) 

Green,  Elizabeth,  alias  Monroe,  alias  Ward  (3  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  122) 

Gresham,  Mary  E.  (6P.  D.,  84) 

Groppe,  Henry  (8  P.  D.,  293),  overruled  in  part 

H. 
Hamilton,  Zenas  (2P.  D.,217). 

Harding,  James  (2  P.  D.,  232),  overruled  in  principle 

Harmon,  James  A.  (129  L.  B.,  7) 

Harvey,  Rachel  (7  P.  D.,  60;  sf  e  11  P.  D.,  97) 

Hatfield,  C.W.  (5P.  D.,  :J49) 

Haynes,  Sanford  A.  (4  P.  D.,  405) 

Hooker,  America  (8P.  D.,  210;  see  13 P.  D.,  90) ...,.„...., ,.. 


11  P.  D., 380. 
7P.D.,8. 

14  P.  D., 554. 
3  P.  D., 200. 
IP.D.,383. 

7P.D.,545. 

12  P.  D., 278. 


11P.D.,17L 
7  P.  D.,  233. 
15  P.  D., 44. 
6  P.  D,  226. 
3P.  D.,o.s., 
7P  D.,468. 
7P.D.,3a5. 
12  P.D.,466, 


2  P.  D.,  187, 309. 
8  P.  D., 316. 
7  P.  D., 207. 


7  P.  D., 218. 
15  P.  D., 503. 

8  P.  D., 111. 

3  P.  D.,  1,16, 203. 


409. 


14  P.  D. 
9P.D., 
7P.D., 
7P.D., 
7P.D., 

14  P.  D. 
4P.D., 
11  P.  D. 

15  P.  D. 
8P.D., 
7P.D., 
10  P.  D 
7P.  D., 
13  P.  D 
3P.  D., 
8P.  D., 
9P.  D., 


,344. 
382. 
247. 
229. 
163. 
,186. 
51. 

,66,131. 
,503. 
142. 
229. 

..  o-  s.,  J 
200. 
.,148. 
o.  s.,  2i 
,316. 
,  1,52. 


3P.  D.,3. 
4P.D.,  31,315, 
11  P.  D.,  380. 

8  P.  n.,  316. 
7  P.  D.,  330. 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


101 


Table  of  cases  overruled  or  modified — Continued. 


Cases  reiKjrted. 


Hope,  William  S.  (182  L.  B.,  400). 

Howard,  Lafayette  Q.  (8  P.  D.,  230),  overruled  in  part;  see  also  11  P.  D., 
448;  13P.D.,  148,151 

Hughes,  Juda  (7P.D.,  107);  se*' 15  P.  D.,503 

Hurst,  Mary  Ann  (9  P.  D.,  406) 


I. 

Ingerick,  Jane  (1  P.  D.,  394);  see  l6  P.  D.,  335. 

Instructions  (10  P.  D.,  465) 

Instructions  (11  P.  D.,  a51) 


J. 

Jewell,  Franklin  (5  P.  D.,  285),  overruled  in  part 

Johnson,  Ann  B.  (7  L.  B.  P.,  69) 

Johnson,  Gus  (8  P.  D.,  46:3),  modified. 

Johnson,  Thomas  C.  (242  L.  B.,  175) 

Jones,  Catherine  (7  L.  B.P.,284) 

Jones,  widow  of  Rowland  M.  (3P.  D.,  433) 

Jones,  William  (1  P.  D.,  87).... 

K. 

Kaufman,  Daniel  B.  (1  P.  D.,  383),  overruled 

Kaufman,  Daniel  B.  (3  P.  D.,  137);  see  51*.  D.,  288;  7  P.  D. 

Kephart,  Schuyler  C,  minor  Samuel  A.  (4  P.  D.,  419) 

Kerren,  Matilda  (7  P.  D.,  443).... 

Kersey,  Sarah  A.  (6  P.  D.,  1),  modified;  see  7  P.  D.,  235... 

Kibler,  Charles  F.  (77  L.  B.  P.,50) 

Klein,  Moses  (3  L.  B.  P.,  38) 

Knappenberger,  Caroline  (3  P.  D.,  263) 

Koschwitz,  Augusta  M.  (11  P.  D.,  102;  see  13  P.  D.,  90) .... 


9P.  D., 


L,. 


Latham,  Emily  (5  P.  D.,  170) 

Laws,  Panter,  heirs  of  (2  P.  D.,  o.  s.,291) 

Lessor,  George  (8  P.  D.,  114),  overruled  in  part... 

Lesuer,  widow  of  Charles  (L.  B.,  ''Zb,'"  327) 

Levan,  Daniel  Webster  (9  P.  D.,  322) 

Lewis,  Mercy  (5  P.  D.,  293;  see  15  P.  D.,  413) 

Lingers,  Sophia,  widow  of  James  (4  P.  D.,  287),  modified 


Lott,  Catherine  (5  P.  D.,  382) 
Lynch,  Charles  (1  P.  D.,  o.  s. 


M. 

McCoy,  John  R.  (5  P.  D.,  369) 

McNeil,  Mary  E.  (3  P.  D.,  26) 

Mace,  Richard  (5  P.  D.,  16) 

Martin,  minors  of  Richard  (6  P.  D.,  107) 

Martini,  minors  of  William  (7  P.  D.,  59) 

Milbourn,  Chalkley,  alias  T.  C.  (L.  B.,  "V,"379) 

Milliken,  widow  of  Daniel,  now  Morrison  (2  P.  D.,  100,  272). 
Monroe,  Elizabeth  (3  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  282);  see  3  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  122  .. 

Monthony,  Stephen  F.  (11  P.  D.,  193);  .see  15  P.  D.,  8 

MuUins,  Charles  B.  (6  P.  D.,  285),  overruled  in  part 

Nichols,  Betty  P.  (13  P.  D.,  330) 

Niedhammer,  Alma  (8  P.  D.,  276);  .see  11  P.D.,  301 

Norris,  Louisa  S.  (5P.  D.,  42) 


Where  overruled  or 
modified. 


11  P.  D.,  380. 

12  P.  D.,  25. 

10  P.  D.,  303. 


14  P.  D.,  24. 
12  P.  D.,  147. 


7  P.  D.,  183. 

1  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  429, 

14  P.  D.,  474. 

12  P.  D.,  59. 

7  P.  D.,  o.  8.,  213. 

7  P.  D.,  24. 

3P.  D.,16. 


3  P.  D.,  137. 

7  P.  D.,  163. 
15  P.  D.,  .561. 

7  P.  D.,  270. 

8  P.  D.,  470. 
7  P.  D.,  207. 


7  P.  D.,  545. 
12P.  D.,  184:. 
9  P.  D.,  :382. 
4  P.  D.,  202. 
11  P.  D.,  380. 


7  P.  D.,  207;  7  P. 
437;  8  P.  D.,  42. 

7  P.  D.,  163. 

IP.  D.,  1. 


7  P.  D.,  270. 
7  P.  D.,  376. 
7  P.  D.,  408. 
7  P.  D.,  229. 
7  P.  D.,  478. 
2  P.  D  ,  :«o. 
3P.  D.,  283. 

14  P.  D.,  445. 

7P.  D,  126. 

15  P.  D.,  198. 
7  P.  D.,  74. 


102 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


Table  of  cases  overruled  or  modified— Contiuxied. 


Cases  reported. 


"Where  overruled  or 
modified. 


Norton,  John  (9  P.  D.,  38! 
Numer,  William  (5  P.  D. 


),  modified IIP.D.,  362. 

168) - '  6P.D.,  2m. 

O. 

Oliver,  David  (7  P.  D.,  597);  seeaZso  9P.  D.,  96,  395 |  9P.  D.,  182. 

Order  231,  annulled ,  11  P.  D..  :i87. 

O'Neill,  Margaret  (8  P.  D.,  333) '  15P.D.,339. 


Osborn,  William  B.  (3  P.  D.,  396) 


Packard,  child  of  Hiram  F.  (171  P.  D.,  470) 

Palmer,  Ellen  A.  (7  P.  D.,  363);  see  14  P.  D.,  554 

Parcell,  Catherine  (13P.D.,  450),  overruled  in  part 

Parker,  see  Packard,  child  of  Hiram  F 

Pearl,  James  A.  (3  P.  D.,  375) 

Pendleton,  John  (5P.  D.,  217) 

Pereles,  Louis  (77  L.  B.  P.,  55) 

Perkins,  minors  of  Harvey  (13P.D.,  414) 

Plount,  minor  of  Edward  (13  P.  D.,541) 

Poland,  Elizabeth  H.  (8  P.  D.,  266) ,  overruled  In  part 

Pomeroy,  Fanny  G.  (13  P.  D.,  342);  set- 15  P.  D.,  303 

Pool,  Lucinda  M.  R.  (1  P.  D.,  401);  see  15  P.  D.,  335 

Porter,  father  of  Andrew  (4P.  D.,  415).. 

Pulver,  Jonas  W.,  alleged  minor  of  (10 P.  D.,  227),  overruled  in  part. 

reinstated 

Pyle,  widow  of  Jesse  F.  (14  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  151),  modified 

R. 

Ransom,  Albert  K.  (5  P.  D.,  183),  modified 

Rhinehart,  Perry  (2 L.  B.  P.,  122) 

Rogers,  Washington  H.  (6  P.  D.,  170)... 

Rushmore,  Mary  J.  (2  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  152) 


S. 
Sanders,  Emma  C.  (11  P.  D.,  114) 

Schaflfer,  Louis  (6  P.  D.,  137)  overruled  in  part 

reaffirmed 

Schmidlin,  Elizabeth  (6  P.  D.,  200);  see  10  P.  D.,  211 

Schreve,  Theresia  (9  P.  D.,  78) 

Server,  Ann  Eliza  (7P.  D.,  468);  see  10  P.  D.,  211 

Sheets,  Amy  P.  (3  P.  D.,  293).. 

Sherard,  Nancy  E.  (704  L.  B.  P.,  112),  overruled  in  part 

Sherwood,  Sarah,  widow  of  William  H.  Wales  (9  P.  D.,  o.  s., : 

Shuttleworth,  Minnie  (3  P.  D.,  50);  see  11  P.  D.,  301 

Soper,  Briggs  (8  P.  D.,  394),  overruled  in  part 

Sousa,  Elizabeth  (436  L.  B.,  249) 

Spencer,  John  (6  P.  D.,167),  modified 

Statesman,  Samuel  (2  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  345) 

Still,  James  H.  (12  P.  D.,  25),  modified  and  explained 

Striggon,  Elizabeth  (8P.  D.,  12) 

Swann,  Margaret  M.  (8  P.  D.,  149),  overruled  in  part 

T. 

Taft,  Alfred  C.  (5  P.  D.,  110) 

Thomas,  Margaret  L.  (9  P.  D.,  139),  modified.. 

Thomas,  Peggy  (13  P.  D.,  98),  overruled  in  part  _ 

Thornton,  Meta  G.,  widow  (15  P.  D.,  312,  Sol),  same  case 


P.  D.,  398. 


8  P.  D.,  142. 


14P.  D.,  63. 


7  P. 

D. 

376. 

7P.D., 

545. 

7  P. 

D., 

270. 

14  P 

.D 

,428. 

14  P 

.D 

,428. 

9  P. 

D., 

162. 

7  P. 

D., 

507. 

13  P 

.D 

,148,151,541 

14P 

.D 

,428. 

IP. 

D. 

27. 

7  P. 

D. 

235. 

2L. 

B. 

P.,  125. 

7  P. 

D. 

235. 

2  P. 

D. 

o.s.,297. 

14  P 

.D 

.,456. 

7  P. 

D. 

597. 

9  P. 

D. 

182. 

14  P.  D.,  497. 


7P.  D., 
15  P.  D 
10  P.  D. 

9P.D., 
12  P.  D, 
7P.D., 
10  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 
12  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 

7P.D., 
10  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 
15  P.  D. 


468. 
,478. 
,o.s., 

152. 

,166. 

152. 

,78. 

,28. 

,441. 

,44. 

218. 
,162. 
,530. 
,561. 


PENSION   AND   BOtlNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 


103 


Table  of  cases  overruled  or  modified — Continued. 


Cases  reported. 


Trask,  Napoleon  B.  (9P.  D.,  113);  .sre  11  P.  D.,  62 

Treatl-:e  on  Practice  of  Pension  Bureau,  modified 

Treatise  on  Practice  of  Pension  Bureau  (p.  85,  par.  7),  overruled 
Tucker,  Edwin  E.  (IP.  D.,  1) 

V. 

Van  Fossen,  John  (3  P.  D.,  347) 

Varco,  IsabeUa  (9  P.  D.,  1) •. 

W. 

Wagoner,  Carroll  M.  (1  P.  D.,  338) 

Walden,  Henry,  father  (8  P.  D.,  340);  see  14  P.  D.,  474 , 

Wales,  Sarah,  now  Sherwood  (9  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  336) 

Ward,  Berkely  (L.  B.,  "Za,"  194) 

Welch,  Ellen  (5  P.  D.,394),  overruled  in  part 

Wempe,  Frank  (5  P.  D.,  339) 

Wescott,  W.  F.  (6P.  D.,  226) 

West,  Sarah  E.  (3  P.  D.,  115),  overruled  in  part 

Williams,  Catherine  A 

Willis,  William 

Wolhart,  Jacob  (8  P.  D.,  226) 

Y. 

Yates,  Lizzie,  widow  (10  P.  D.,  446);  see  13  P.  D.,  90 

Z. 

Zerback,  Joseph  (L.  B.,  "Qa,"4l3) 


Where  overruled  or 
modified. 


11P.D..451. 
12  P.  D.,  166. 
3P.D.,94. 

7  P.  D., 218. 
9  P.  D.,  320. 

8P.D.,1. 


10  P.  D. 
2P.D., 
7P.D., 
7P.D., 
7P.D., 
7P.D., 

11  P.  D. 

12  P.  D. 
9P.D., 


43. 

218. 

132. 

207. 

,o.s.,274. 

,o.s.,296. 

152. 


4  P.  D., 215. 


DIGEST  OF  PENSION  DECISIONS. 


ABANDONMENT. 
By  Attorneys. 

See  Attorneys:  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  109)  ;  Nos.  9,  10  (9  P.  D.,  213,  375; 
11  P.  D.,  25;  13  P.  D.,  444;  14  P.  D.,  273). 

By  Parents  and  Children. 

See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  4  (12  P.  D.,  131;  14  P.  D.,  271). 

Under  Act  of  March  3,  1899. 

See  Division  of  Pension,  the  whole  chapter. 

When  Minors  Are  Entitled  under  Section  4706,  Revised  Statutes. 

1.  The  words  "  on  presentation  of  satisfactory  evidence  thereof 
to  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions,"  as  used  in  section  4706,  Re- 
vised Statutes,  import  that  the  Commissioner's  function,  in  cases 
arising  thereunder,  is  not  merely  executive,  but  judicial  as  well; 
and 

2.  When  satisfactory  evidence  has  been  presented  to  the  Com- 
missioner that  a  widow  has  abandoned  the  care  of  the  minor 
children  of  a  deceased  soldier,  "  or  is  an  unsuitable  person,  by 
reason  of  immoral  conduct,  to  have  the  custody  of  the  same," 
such  children  may  be  pensioned  in  the  same  manner  as  if  no 
widow  had  survived  such  soldier,  regardless  of  a  certificate  of  a 
probate  court  as  to  such  facts.  (Case  of  minors  of  Alfred  S. 
Hamilton,  7  P.  D.,  437;  Charles  and  Caroline  McElhaney 
(minors),8P.  D.,  42.) 

ANNOTATION. 

The  above  decisions,  although  appearing  in  the  "  Digest  of 
1897,"  are  reinserted  herein,  because  no  case  arising  under  sec- 
tion 4706,  Revised  Statutes,  appears  in  the  published  decisions 
of  the  Secretary  since  1895.  In  case  of  the  filing  of  a  claim  by 
the  guardian  of  a  soldier's  minor  child  or  children  whose  mother 
receives  a  pension  as  soldier's  widow,  alleging  that  said  mother 
has  abandoned  said  child  or  children,  or  is  an  unsuitable  person, 

105 


106  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LANt)    CLAIMS. 

by  reason  of  immoral  conduct,  to  longer  have  the  care  and  cus- 
tody of  said  child  or  children,  the  claim  will  be  adjudicated 
under  said  section  4706,  R.  S.,  as  indicated  in  above-mentioned 
decisions. 

ABSENCE  FROM  COMMAND. 

See  Line  of  Duty  :  No.  7  (11  P.  D..  30;  12  P.  D.,  431 ;    14  P.  D.,  114). 
See  Service:  No.  22  (11  P.  D.,  435;  14  P.  D.,  2'u). 


ABSENC]^. 


See  Line  of  Duty  :  No.  7  (11  P.  D..  .30 ;  12  P.  D.,  431 ;  14  P.  D.,  114). 
See  Service:  No.  22  (11  P.  D.,  435:  14  P.  D.,  257). 

ACCIDENTAL  INJURY. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  492). 

See  Line  of  Duty:  No.  7,  8,  9,  17  (12  P.  D.,  431;  9  P.  D.,  .52,  4.33; 

11  P.  D.,  191 ;  14  P.  D.,  203,  506 ;  11  P.  D.,  103 ;  9  P.  D.,  130 ;  14 

P.  D.,  81. 

ACCRUED  PENSIONS. 

References. 

See  Attorneys:  No.  12  (11  P.  D.,  49). 
See  Disloyalty  :  No.  10  (14  P.  D.,  104,  422). 
See  Evidence:  No.  10  (11  P.  D.,  501). 
See  Insane  Person  :  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  270). 
.    See  Jurisdiction  :  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  147). 
See  Pending  Claim  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  171). 
See  Reimbursement:  No.  4  (14  P.  D.,  152;  11  P.  D.,  395). 

Index. 

1.  Generally. 

2.  Minors  over  16  years  old. 

3.  Minor  grandchildren. 

4.  Fund  in  hands  of  guardian. 

5.  When  original  pension  illegal. 

6.  Act  of  March  2,  1895. 

7.  Act  of  March  13,  1896. 

8.  Special  act. 

9.  Under  section  4719,  Revised  Statutes. 

10.  When  disloyalty  bars  title  to. 

11.  When  disloyalty  does  not  bar  title  to. 

1.  Generally. 

Accrued  pension — Act  March  2, 1895.    (Alleged  minors  of  William 
B.  Weyant,  9  P.  D.,  276.) 

Under  the  act  of  March  2, 1895,  no  payment  of  accrued  pension 
(except  in  reimbursement  cases)  can  be  made  to  any  person  other 
than  the  widow  or  a  child  of  the  soldier. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  107 

2.  Minors  over  Sixteen  Years  Old. 

Accrued  pension — Act  of  31  arch  2^  1895 — Section  J// 02^  Recised 
Statutes.     (Minors  of  Andrew  W.  Haskett,  9  P.  D.,  8.) 

The  minors,  being  over  16  years  of  age  at  the  death  of  the 
widow  of  soldier  who  was  in  receipt  of  pension,  are  not  entitled 
to  the  accrued  pension  due  the  widow  at  date  of  her  death,  nor 
are  they  entitled  to  pension  under  the  provisions  of  section  4702, 
Revised  Statutes,  as  she  had  received  a  part  of  pension  named  in 
said  section. 

3.  Minor  Grandchildren. 

A  Gcrued  pension — A  ct  March  ^,  1895 — Minor  grandchildren.  ( Minor 
of  Orange  Trice,  9  P.  D.,  393.) 

The  grandchildren  of  a  soldier  have  no  title  to  accrued  pension. 
Euling  No.  218  of  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  is  abrogated  by 
the  act  of  March  2,  1895. 

4.  Fund  in  Hands  of  Guardian. 

Jurisdiction — G  uardianship — Pension      fund— A  cc7nied      pension. 
(Commissioner  of  Pensions,  11  P.  D.,  351.) 

1.  The  guardian  of  a  pensioner  is. the  agent  of  the  United 
States  for  the  proper  expenditure  of  pension  money  in  his  hands, 
irrespective  of  the  duties  devolved  upon  him  by  the  State  law. 

2.  A  pension  fund  granted  to  a  pensioner,  in  the  hands  of  a 
guardian,  is  in  transitu  until  it  reaches  its  final  destination,  and 
is  controlled  only  by  the  United  States;  and  the  Commissioner 
of  Pensions  is  invested  with  the  discretionary  power  necessary 
to  the  proper  administration  of  the  pension  laws,  and  guardians 
holding  pension  funds  are  subject  to  his  direction  both  before 
and  after  the  death  of  their  wards. 

3.  All  funds  which  have  accumulated  in  the  hands  of  a  guar- 
dian by  operation  of  the  pension  law  and  have  not  been  paid  to 
the  pensioner  or  expended  in  accordance  with  law  in  his  behalf 
are  in  the  nature  of  accrued  pension.  *• 

4.  An  unexpended  pension  fund  in  the  hands  of  a  guardian 
has  not,  in  legal  contemplation,  been  paid  to  the  pensioner,  and 
is  an  accrued  pension. 

5.  The  act  of  March  2,  1895,  is  the  law  of  distribution  of  ac- 
crued pension  of  a  deceased  pensioner,  and  applies  to  the  fund 
in  the  hands  of  a  guardian  unexpended  at  the  time  of  such  pen- 
sioner's decease. 

5.  When  Original  Pension  Illegal. 

Disloyalty — Section    J^716^    Reinsed    Statutes — Accrued    pension. 
(Anna  M.  Winkler,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  241.) 


108  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Pension  having  erroneously  been  granted  to  the  soldier  under 
the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  he  having  aided  and  abetted  the  late 
rebellion  against  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  section  47l(), 
Revised  Statutes,  positively  prohibits  the  payment  of  the  pen- 
sion that  may  have  accrued  to  him  to  the  date  of  his  death  to 
his  widow. 

6.  Act  of  March  2,  1895. 

Acctmed  pension — Act  of  March  ^,  1895.  (William  Lake,  de- 
ceased, 12  P.  D.,405.) 

The  act  of  March  2,  1895,  provides  that  from  and  after  Sep- 
.tember  28,  1892,  if  no  Avidow  or  child  survive  the  pensioner, 
no  payment  >vhatsoever  of  accrued  pension  shall  be  made  or 
allowed  except  so  much  as  may  be  necessary  to  reimburse  the 
person  who  bore  the  expense  of  his  last  sickness  and  burial, 
and  expressly  repeals  the  provision  of  the  act  of  March  1,  1889, 
under  which  this  claim  for  accrued  pension  is  made. 

7.  Act  of  March  13,  1896. 

Accrued  pensio7i — Presumption  of  death ^  act  March  13^  1896 — Pay- 
ment.    (George  H.  Overocker,  12  P.  D.,  208.) 

The  pending  invalid  claim  filed  in  1891  was  allowed  in  1894, 
which  was  subsequent  to  the  soldier's  disappearance  and  sup- 
posed death  in  1893,  and  the  pension  was  never  paid.  In  1900 
the  widow  was  allowed  pension  in  her  own  right,  under  act 
of  June  27,  1890,  upon  the  presumption  of  soldier's  death,  after 
his  continued  and  unexplained  absence  from  his  home  and 
family  for  a  period  of  seven  years  from  date  of  his  disappear- 
ance, during  which  period  no  intelligence  of  his  existence  had 
been  received. 

The  widow  is  also  held  to  be  entitled  to  such  part  of  soldier's 
pension  as  accrued  while  he  was  known  to  be  alive,  or  from 
the  date  of  the  commencement  thereof  as  adjudicated  to  the  date 
of  his  disappearance,  although  the  exact  date  of  his  death  is  not 
known. 

8.  Special  Act. 

Accrued  pension — Evidence — Presumption  of  death — Special  act. 
(B.  Matilda  Taylor,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  181.) 

A  special  act  directed  the  name  of  soldier  to  be  placed  upon 
the  pension  roll,  "  subject  to  the  provisions  and  limitations  of 
the  pension  laws."  Exhaustive  search  has  failed  to  discover  the 
whereabouts  of  said  soldier,  he  having  disappeared  somewhat 
over  one  year  prior  to  the  approval  of  said  special  act. 

Held:  There  is  no  accrued  pension  due  under  the  said  special 
act,  and  the  claimant  herein  has  no  rights  under  it. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  109 

9.  Under  Section  4719,  Revised  Statutes. 

Accrued  pension — Restoration— Section  Jf719^  Revised  Statutes. 
(Eliza  C.  Brown,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  188.) 

The  widow  of  a  soldier,  whose  name  was  stricken  from  the 
rolls  under  section  4719  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  has  title  to  the 
arrears  of  pension  thereunder,  providing  her  evidence  is  suffi- 
cient to  establish  continuance  of  disability,  and  to  give  satis^ 
factory  explanation  .of  the  soldier's  failure  to  claim  his  pension 
under  his  original  certificate. 

10.  When  Disloyalty  Bars  Title  to. 

Disloyalty — Evidence — Section  Jf716.  (James  H.  Kelley,  14  P.  D., 
104.) 

The  evidence  fails  to  rebut  the  presumption,  from  the  records 
of  the  War  Department,  of  this  soldier's  voluntary  aiding  and 
abetting  the  rebellion. 

He  having  died  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  joint  resolution  of 
July  1,  1902,  removing  the  bar  of  section  4716  as  applied  to  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890,  said  joint  resolution  hus  no  effect  upon  his 
claim  under  said  act,  and  does  not  remove  said  bar  existing  at 
the  time  of  his  death  so  as  to  entitle  his  widow  to  accrued  pen- 
sion under  said  claim. 

11.  When  Disloyalty  Does  Not  Bar  Title  to. 

Disloyalty — Joint  resolution  of  Jidy  7, 1902 — Section  JfllG^  Revised 
Statutes — Accrued  pension.  (Rebecca  Medlock,  widow,  14  P.  D., 
422.) 

Where  a  soldier  died  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  joint  resolu- 
tion of  July  1,  1902,  removing  bar  to  payment  under  section 
4716,  Revised  Statutes,  as  applied  to  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
said  resolution  affords  no  remedy  to  those  claiming  under  him 
in  all  cases  where  his  right  to  pension  had  not  been  admitted, 
said  suppositive  personal  right  to  pension  dying  with  him. 

But  where  a  soldier's  claim  had  been  admitted  and  his  right 
to  pension,  so  far  as  section  4716,  Revised  Statutes,  is  concerned, 
had  never  been  questioned  in  his  lifetime,  his  widow  may  not 
be  refused  payment  of  his  accrued  pension  subsequent  to  the 
passage  of  said  joint  resolution,  upon  the  ground  that  he  had 
rendered  voluntary  service  to  the  Confederacy,  a  fact  discovered 
after  soldier's  death. 

ANNOTATION. 

A  popular  fallacy  exists  as  to  those  entitled  to  an  accrued 
pension.  This  fallacious  belief  arises  from  the  fact  that  the 
heirs  at  law^  of  a  deceased  person  are  not  all  entitled  to  the 
accrued  pension  of  the  decedent,  as  they  are  to  his  or  her  other 


110  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

property.  Only  those  heirs  at  law  and  other  persons  specific- 
ally named  in  the  pension  laws  are  entitled  to  the  accrued 
pension. 

The  act  of  March  2.  1895,  which  is  the  only  law  relative  to  the 
payment  of  accrued  pension  now  in  force,  provides  that  from 
and  after  September  28,  1892,  the  accrued  pension  to  the  date 
of  the  death  of  any  pensioner,  or  of  any  person  entitled  to  a 
pension  having  an  application  therefor  pending,  and  whether  a 
certificate  therefor  shall  issue  prior  or  subsequent  to  the  death 
of  such  person,  shall,  in  the  case  of  a  person  pensioned  or  apply- 
ing for  pension  on  account  of  his  disabilities  or  service,  be  paid, 
first,  to  his  widow^ ;  second,  if  there  is  no  widows  to  his  child  or 
children  under  the  age  of  16  years  at  his  death ;  third,  in  case  of 
a  widow,  to  her  minor  children  under  the  age  of  16  years  at  her 
death. 

Such  accrued  pension  shall  not  be  considered  a  part  of  the 
assets  of  the  estate  of  such  deceased  person,  nor  be  liable  for  the 
payment  of  debts  of  said  estate  in  any  case  whatsoever,  but  shall 
inure  to  the  sole  and  exclusive  benefit  of  the  widow  or  children. 
And  if  no  widow  or  child  survive  such  pensioner,  and  in  the 
case  of  his  last  surviving  child  who  was  such  minor  at  his  death, 
and  in  case  of  a  dependent  mother,  father,  sister,  or  brother,  no 
payment  whatsoever  of  their  accrued  pension  shall  be  made  or 
allowed  except  so  much  as  may  be  necessary  to  reimburse  the 
person  who  bore  the  expense  of  their  last  sickness  and  burial, 
if  they  did  not  leave  suiRcient  assets  to  meet  such  expense. 

The  effect  of  this  act  was  to  nullify  the  departmental  ruling 
of  September  28,  1892,  which  restricted  the  application  of  sec- 
tion 4718,  Revised  Statutes,  to  invalid  pensioners  and  applicants, 
the  intent  of  the  act  being  to  leave  all  adjustments  and  payments 
of  accrued  pension  made  prior  to  September  28,  1892,  undis- 
turbed, but  to  establish  a  new  rule  to  govern  all  adjustments 
and  payments  of  such  pension  after  that  date.  It  makes  no 
difference  when  the  claim  was  filed  or  when  the  applicant  for 
pension  died.  The  only  question  is.  When  was  the  claim  ad- 
judicated? If  prior  to  September  28,  1892,  then  the  law  govern- 
ing was  section  4718,  Revised  Statutes ;  if  subsequent  to  Septem- 
ber 28,  1892,  then  the  law  governing  was  the  act  of  March  2, 
1895.     (See  case  of  Mariah  E.  Brown,  8  P.  D.,  439.) 

The  provision  in  said  act  that  in  case  of  a  widow  the  accrued 
pension  shall  be  paid  to  her  minor  children  under  16  years  at  her 
death  is  held  to  refer  only  to  her  children  by  the  soldier. 

If  the  widow  pensioner's  children,  by  the  soldier,  are  all  over 
the  age  of  16  years  at  her  death,  they  are  not  entitled  to  the 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  Ill 

widow's  accrued  pension,  nor  to  any  pension  whatsoever.  (See 
9  P.  D.,  8.) 

^Vhere  a  soldier  who  is  a  pensioner  or  has  a  claim  for  pension 
pending  dies,  leaving  no  widow  or  child  under  16  years  of  age 
surviving,  and  where  the  last  surviving  minor  child  of  a  de- 
ceased soldier,  which  child  is  a  pensioner  or  has  a  claim  for 
pension  pending,  dies  before  reaching  its  sixteenth  year,  and  in 
case  of  a  dependent  father,  mother,  sister,  or  brother,  no  pay- 
ment whatsoever  of'  their  accrued  pension  shall  be  made  or 
allowed,  except  so  much  as  may  be  necessary  to  reimburse  the 
person  who  bore  the  expense  of  their  last  sickness  and  burial, 
if  they  did  not  leave  sufficient  assets  to  meet  such  expense. 

The  grandchildren  of  a  soldier  have  no  title  to  his  accrued 
pension. 

When  a  Union  soldier,  who  had  a  prior  Confederate  service, 
has  died  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  joint  resolution  of  July  1, 
1902,  his  widow  or  minor  children  have  no  title  to  his  accrued 
pension  (14  P.  D.,  101),  except  where  the  soldier's  claim  had 
been  admitted  and  his  right  to  pension,  so  far  as  section  4716, 
Revised  Statutes,  is  concerned,  had  never  been  questioned  in  his 
lifetime,  and  the  fact  of  his  Confederate  service  was  not  discov- 
ered until  after  his  death.  (See  Rebecca  Medlock,  widow,  14 
P.  D.,  422.) 

In  May,  1898,  the  Auditor  for  the  Interior  Department  decided 
that  where  an  applicant  for  invalid  pension  dies  while  his  claim 
is  pending,  leaving  a  widow,  who  also  dies  without  receiving  the 
accrued  invalid  pension  (if  the  invalid  claim  is  allowed),  it  is 
available  (under  the  act  of  March  2,  1895)  for  the  payment  of 
the  expenses  of  the  last  sickness  and  funeral  of  the  soldier.  But 
s«e  case  of  Charles  Staples  (Alice  Haynes  completing),  12  P.  D., 
298 ;  Digest,  chapter  ''  Reimbursement,"  No.  3. 

PRACTICE. 

Our  board  of  review  holds  as  follows:     . 

That  in  all  cases  where  an  invalid  pension  certificate  is  issued 
and  the  pensioner  dies  before  or  after  the  date  of  issuance  and 
prior  to  actual  payment^  the  widow,  or  if  there  be  no  widow,  the 
pensioner's  children  under  16  years  of  age  are  allowed  the  pen- 
sion upon  an  accrued  face  brief,  unless  something  is  to  be  cor- 
rected on  the  invalid  issue,  then  use  a  reissue  face  brief  and  not 
an  accrued  face  brief. 

If  by  change  of  residence  or  otherwise  the  certificate  fails  to 
reach  pensioner  and  his  name  is  dropped  from  the  rolls  by  reason 
of  failure  to  claim  the  pension  for  over  three  years,  and  after  thQ 


112  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

dropping  the  pensioner  dies  without  being  restored,  the  widow 
can  not  be  paid  said  pension  upon  the  accrued  brief  face,  but 
must  file  an  application  for  the  soldier's  name  to  be  restored  to 
the  rolls  and  she  be  paid  upon  a  reissue, 

ACT  OF  FEBRUARY  11,  1847. 

See  Bounty  Land:   No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  312,  561). 

ACT  OF  MARCH  3,  1855. 

See  Bounty  Land:  Nos.  2,  3  (15  P.  D.,  02,  147,  312,  351,  561). 

ACT  OF  JULY  18,  1874. 

See  Aid  and  Attendance:   No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  77,  299). 

ACT  OF  JUNE  17,  1878. 

See  Aid  and  Attendance:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  70). 

ACT  OF  JUNE  16,  1880. 

See  Aid  and  Attendance:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  77). 

ACT  OF  MARCH  25,  1862. 

See  Service:   No.  15  (10  P.  D.,  58). 

ACT  OF  JULY  4,  1864. 

See  Declarations:    No.  3  (J)  P.  D.,  7). 

ACT  OF  MARCH  3,  1865: 

See  Minors:   No.  4  (12  P.  D.,  83). 

See  Restoration  :   No.  2  (13  P.  D.,  286). 

ACT  OF  MARCH  3,  1879. 

See  Aid  and  Attendance:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  70). 
See  Commencement:   No.  6  (11  P.  D.,  18). 
See  Limitation  :  Nos.  1,  6  (14  P.  D.,  24,  489). 

ACT  OF  JULY  25,  1882. 

See  Jurisdiction  :   No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  348). 
See  Special  Act:   No.  2  (13  P.  D.,  95). 

ACT  OF  AUGUST  7,  1882. 

See  Adulterous  Cohabitation:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  324)  ;  No.  2  (9  P.  D., 
62,  116,  327)  ;  No.  3  (9  P.  D.,  17)  ;  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  286)  ;  No.  5 
(13  P.  D.,  357;  14  P.  D.,  84,  219)  ;  No.  6  (14  P.  D.,  242)  ;  No.  7 
(14  P.  D.,  362)  ;  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  48)  ;  No.  9  (15  P.  D.,  96)  ;  No.  10 
(12  P.  D.,  258).    ' 

See  Estoppel:    No.  4  (15  P.  D.,  47), 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  113 

See  Insane  Person:    No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  270)  ;    No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  430). 

See  Legitimacy:  Nos.  4,  7  (14  P.  D.,  474;  15  P.  D.,  386). 

See  Marriage:    subtitle  West  Virginia    (14  P.   D..  38);    No.  4    (13 

P.  D.,  272)  ;    No.  11   (12  P.  D.,  517;    15  P.  D.,  459)  ;    No.  15  (13 

P.  D..  129,  140,  173). 
See  Minors:    No.  2  (10  P.  D.,  124). 

ACT  OF  AUGUST  8,  1882. 

See  Insane  Persons:  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  430). 

ACT  OF  MARCH  3,  1883. 

See  Rate  and  Rating:  No.  11  (9  P.  D.,  125). 

ACT  OF  MARCH  3,  1885. 

See  Increase:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  54). 

ACT  OF  MARCH  19,  1886. 

See  Increase:  No.  6  (14  P.  D.,  95). 
See  Marriages:  No.  16  (10  P.  D.,  12). 
See  Rate  and  Ratings  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  403). 
See  Reimbursement:  No.  2  (13  P.  D.,  201). 

ACT  OF  AUGUST  4,  1886. 

See  Amputation  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  70;  11  P.  D.,  1;  14  P.  D.,  264). 

See  Disability  :  No.  9  (12  P.  D.,  477). 

See  Increase  :  Nos.  1  and  9  (9  P.  D.,  204,  401). 

See  Rate  and  Rating:  No.  9  (13  P.  D.,  362). 

See  Rerating:  No.  4  (14  P.  D.,  215). 

ACT  OF  JANUARY  29,  1887. 

See  Dependent  Widows:  No.  5  (10  P.  D.,  28;  15  P.  D.,  324). 
See  Desertion  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  382). 
See  Disability  :  No.  11  (9  P.  D.,  341). 
See  Honorable  Disc^harge  :  No.  1  (14  P.  D.,  195). 
See  Increase:  No.  7  (14  P.  D.,  155,285). 
See  Remarriage:  No.  1   (10  P.  D.,  324;  11  P.  D..  338). 
See  Service:  Nos.  4  and  7  (10  P.  D.,  139,  425;  11  P.  D.,  110,  163,  218; 
14  P.  D.,  357;  15  P.  D.,  158;  15  P.  D.,  544). 

ACT  OF  MARCH  4,  1890. 

See  Aid  and  Attendance:  No.  2  (10  P.  D.,  172 ;  12  P.  D.,  77,  299). 
See  Commencement:  No.  13  (14  P.  IX.  209). 
See  Rate  and  Rating  :  No.  7  (10  P.  D.,  443). 

ACT  OF  JUNE  27,  1890. 

See  Accrued  Pensions:  Nos.  .5,  10,  and  11  (11  P.  D.,  241;  14  P.  D., 

104,  422)  ;  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  208). 
See  Adulterous  Cohabitation:  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  62,  116,  327)  ;  No.  3 

(9  P.  D.,  17)  ;  No.  5  (14  P.  D.,  84). 

13070—06 8 


114  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

See  Age  :  Nos.  1,  3  (11  P.  D.,  179 ;  12  P.  D.,  511 ). 

See  Appeals  :  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  250)  ;  No.  7  (15  P.  D.,  265). 

See  Attorneys  :  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  184)  ;  No.  8  (10  P.  D.,  460). 

See  Commencement  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  102,  189,  216,  226;  11  P.  D.,  162, 
431,  510;  13  P.  D.,  242,  352,  398;  15  P.  D.,  79)  ;  No.  3  (14  P.  D., 
69)  ;  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  17)  ;  No.  14  (15  P.  D.,  328). 

See  Death  Cause  :  Nos.  5,  10,  13,  and  14  (11  P.  D.,  440 ;  12  P.  D.,  180 ; 

13  P.  D.,  313,  342). 

See  Declarations  :  Nos.  1,  2,  5,  and  8  (9  P.  D.,  40,  42,  93,  223,  272 ;  10 

P.  D.,  177,  365 ;  11  P.  D.,  315 ;  14  P.  D.,  426,  434). 
See  Dependent  Parents:  Nos.  2,  3,  4,  6,  7,  and  9  (10  P.  D.,  78.  244, 

299;  11  P.  D.,  171,  247;  12  P.  D.,  27,  361,  509;  13  P.  D.,  432;  15  P. 

D.,  18,  100.  106,  172,  194). 
See  Dependent  Widows  :  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  and  4  (9  P.  D.,  1.  2,  76,  249,  254, 

299,  320,  318,  502;  10  P.  D.,  9,  67,  28,  32(> :  12  P.  D.,  40,  266:  13  P. 

D.,  31,  125,  448;  14  P.  D.,  80,  281,  360;  15  P.  D.,  127,  203,  257,  329). 
See  Desertion  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  382)  ;  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  144,  155;  10  P. 

D.,  355 ;  11  P.  D.,  13 ;  12  P.  D.,  80)  ;  No.  3  (9  P.  D.,  416)  ;  No.  4  (12 

P.  D..  4.50;  15  P.  D..  63)  ;  No.  4(b)  (14  P.  D.,  380;  15  P.  D.,  525)  ; 

No.  4  (c)  (13  P.  D.,  .346;  14  P.  D.,  .5.52)  ;  No.  4  (f)  (14  P.  D.,  3.52; 

15  P.  D.,  437)  ;  No.  5  (12  P.  D.,  137)  ;  No.  7  (15  P.  D.,  276). 
See  DismvALTY :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  146,  279.  294,  3(>6;  10  V.  D.,  72,  210; 

15  I'.  D.,  76,  369)  ;  No.  9   (13  P.  D.,  249.  2.59)  ;  No.  10   (14  P.  D., 

104,  422)  ;  No.  11  (13  P.  D.,  349,  395 ;  15  P.  D.,  337). 
See  Disability:  No.  3  (9  P.  D.,  (>8,  106,  156,  263)  ;  No.  4  (11  P.  D., 

179)  ;  No.  6  (11  P.  D.,  38,  505)  ;  No.  8  (12  P.  D.,  319). 
See  Discharge:  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5  (9  P.  D.,  123,  311;  10  P.  D.,  14,  82; 

14  v.  D.,  283,  326,  413). 

See  Divorce:  No.  8  (14  P.  D.,  99). 

See  Evidence:  No.  10  (15  P.  D.,  41). 

See  B^ee:  Nos.  1,  3,  14,  23,  25  (11  P.  D.,  508;  9  P.  D..  136;  11  P.  D., 

514;  14  P.  D.,  276;  10  P.  D.,  428). 
See  Helpless  Minor:  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4  (9  P.  D.,  9,  26,  353,  452 ;  10  P.  D., 

22,  224,  368 ;  12  P.  D.,  365,  527 ;  14  P.  D.,  331 ;  15  P.  D.,  407). 
See  Identity:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  28). 
See  Marriage:  Subtitle  Delaware  (14  P.  D.,  527)  ;  subtitle  Florida 

(14  P.  I).,  383)  :  subtitle  Louisiana  (14  P.  D.,  344)  ;  subtitle  New 

York   (13  P.  D.,  157)  ;  subtitle  North  Carolina   (12  P.  D.,  287)  ; 

subtitle    South    Carolina    (15   P.    D.,    411)  ;    subtitle   Texas    (15 

P.  D.,  399)  ;  subtitle  Virginia  (14  P.  D.,  445;  No.  3  (a)    (12  P.  D., 

106)  :  No.  10  (9  P.  D.,  30;  10  P.  D.,  266;  11  P.  D.,  488;  13  P.  D., 

338:  14  P.  D.,  347)  ;  No.  13  (14  P.  D.,  497)  ;  No.  14  (9  P.  D.,  251 ; 

11  P.  D.,  73)  ;  No.  15  (10  P.  D.,  441;  12  P.  D.,  159;  13  P.  D.,  70; 

14  P.  D.,  383). 
See  Minors:  Nos.  1,  2  (9  P.  D.,  151 ;  10  P.  D.,  124;  11  P.  D.,  448;  12 

P.  D.,  25,  511 ;  13  P.  D.,  148,  151 ;  15  P.  D.,  28). 
See  Practice:  Nos.  2,  3,  10,  13   (9  P.  D.,  71,  169;  10  P.  D.,  458;  11 

P.  D.,  451;  15  P.  D.,  486). 
See  Rank  :    (9  P.  D.,  406 ;  11  P.  D.,  34). 
See  Rate  and  Rating:  Nos.  2,  3,  8  (9  P.  D.,  404,  413,  486;  10  P.  D., 

176,  2.56,  261,  397,  414:  12  P.  D.,  331). 
See  Reduction  :  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  .344). 
See  Rerating:  No,  3  (13  P,  D.,  233). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  115 

See  Service:  Nos.  5,  G,  7,  8,  10,  11,  12,  13,  16,  18,  20,  21,  22,  23,  24, 
26,  27,  28  (9  P.  D.,  119,  126,  207,  297,  346,  466,  21,  182,  395,  304, 
15;  10  P.  D.,  8,  270,  18;  11  P.  D.,  141,  282,  206,  435;  12  P.  D., 
273,  367,  226,  466,  351,  500,  407;  13  P.  D.,  230,  237,  226,  330.  46; 
14  P.  D.,  63,  249,  257,  494,  71,  346,  515,  388 ;  15  P.  D.,  366,  198,  232, 
340,  294,  281)  ;  No.  22  (15  P.  D.,  548). 

See  Vicious  Habits  :  Nos.  1,  2  (9  P.  D.,  252 ;  15  P.  D.,  427). 

ACT  OF  JULY  1,  1890. 

See  Declarations  :•  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  292). 

ACT  OF  MARCH  3,  1891. 

See  Fee:  Nos.  1,  11  (11  P.  D.,  508;  10  P.  D.,  412). 

ACT  OF  JULY  14,  1892. 

See  Aid  and  Attendance:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  307,  349,  423,  481)  ;  No.  2 
(10  P.  D.,  172;  12  P.  D.,  77,  215,  299)  :  No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  473,  503). 
See  Commencement  :  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  503  ;  10  P.  D.,  66). 
See  Notice:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  21). 

ACT  OF  JULY  27,  1892. 

See  Desertion  :  No.  1   (9  P.  D.,  382). 

See  Service  :  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  23,  44,  51,  124,  130,  201,  375,  394,  396). 

ACT  OF  JANUARY  5,  1893. 

See  Commencement:  Nos.  8,  9,  10  (9  P.  D.,  322;  11  P.  D.,  .380;  14  P. 

D.,  40,  420). 
See  Fee  :  Nos.  17,  19  (13  P.  D.,  75 ;  15  P.  D.,  273 ;  12  P.  D.,  525). 
See  Increase  :  Nos.  2,  7  (10  P.  D.,  64;  14  P.  D.,  285). 
See  Powell's  Battalion  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  172). 
See  Service:  No.  4  (15  P.  D.,  158). 

ACT  OF  DECEMBER  21,  1893. 

See  Notice:  No.  2  (12  P.  D..  21). 

See  Rate  and  Rating  :  No.  12  (9  P.  D.,  165). 

See  Helpless  Minor  :  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  478). 

ACT  OF  MARCH  2,  1895. 

See  Accrued  Pensions:  Nos.  1.  2,  .3,  4,  5,  6,  7  (9  P.  D.,  8,  276,  393; 

11  P.  D.,  241,  .3.51  ;  12  P.  D.,  208,  405). 
See  Attorneys  :  No,  12  (11  P.  1).,  49). 

See  Certificate  of  Medical  Examination  :  No.  1  (t)  P.  D.,  4). 
See  Reimbursement  :  No.  3  (12  P.  D.,  289). 
See  Rate  and  Rating  :  No.  4  (15  P.  D.,  .550). 


ACT  OF  MARCH  6,  1896. 


See  Appeals:  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  250). 

See  Practice:  Nos.  (>,  9,  1(5  (10  P.  D„  73,  321 ;  11  P.  D.,  122). 

See  Rerating;  No.  3  (13  P.  D.,  283). 


116  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

ACT  OF  MARCH  13,  1896. 

See  Accrued  1»ension  :  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  208). 

See  Evidence:  No.  10  (9  P.  D.,  201;  11  P.  D.,  197;  12  P.  D.,  Ill;  I'i 
P.  D.,  347). 

ACT  OF  FEBRUARY  5,  1897. 

See  Commencement:  No.  9  (14  P.  D.,  420). 

ACT  OF  MARCH  30,  1898. 

See  Commencement:  No.  11  (12  P.  D.,  428). 

ACT  OF  MARCH  3,  1899. 

See  Attorneys:  No.  18  (10  1'.  D.,  23ti,  408). 

See  Construction  of  Statutes:  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  77,  90). 

See  Divorce:  No.  4  (18  P.  D.,  286). 

See  Division  of  Pension:  The  whole  chapter:  also  11  P.  D.,  255, 
260,  288,  877  ;  12  P.  D.,  7,  56,  168,  287,  268,  .88(>,  864,  870,  412,  421, 
490,  507 ;  18  P.  D.,  24,  77,  120,  184,  142,  148,  177,  180,  205,  212,  218, 
288,  270,  297,  301,  302,  .347,  363,  888,  411,  422,  424,  430;  14  P.  D., 
1,  45,  120,  127,  130,  136,  146,  150,  159,  177,  191,  230,  234,  313,  334, 
338,  367,  885,  894,  404,  472,  479,  521 ;  15  P.  D.,  14,  21,  88,  56,  82,  90, 
111,  123,  182,  136,  148,  218,  221,  246,  298,  342,  382,  450,  496,  557). 

See  Evidence:  No.  11  (11  P.  D.,  52.3,  524). 

See  Limitation:  No.  5  (12  P.  D.,  479). 

See  Marriage:  No.  1  (14  P.  D.,  17,  48);  subtitle  Minnesota  (15 
P.  D.,  236). 

See  PaYxMent  of  Pension  :  No.  3  (13  P.  D.,  22). 

See  Practice:  Nos.  1,  10,  17,  20,  21,  22,  26  (15  P.  D.,  96;  18  P.  D., 
211,  847 ;  12  P.  D.,  44,  157,  225,  411 ;  13  P.  D.,  203,  206,  299,  542 ;  14 
P.  D.,  8). 

ACT  OF  APRIL  23,  1900. 

See  Commencement  :  No.  10  (14  P.  D.,  40). 

ACT  OF  MAY  9,  1900. 

See  Commencement  :  No.  14  (15  P.  D.,  328). 

See  Dependent  Widows:  No.  3  (13  P.  D.,  81)  ;  No.  4  (12  P.  D.,  266; 

13  P.  D.,  448 ;  14  P.  D.,  80,  281,  360 ;  15  P.  D..  127,  203). 
See  Discharge  :  No.  4  (15  P.  D.,  378). 

ACT  OF  MARCH  3,  1901. 

See  Adulterous  Cohabitation:  No.  7  (14  P.  D.,  362). 
See  Divorce:  No.  6  (14  P.  D.,  438;  15  P.  D.,  128). 
See  Fee:  No.  18  (12  P.  D.,  5,  29). 

See  Restoration  :  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  114.  189,  816,  510;  13  P.  D.,  tl8. 
286.  855,  878,  485 ;  14  P.  D.,  Ill,  128,  194,  198,  318,  411,  452 ;  15  P. 
D.,  381,  446). 

ACT  OF  JUNE  27,  1902. 

See  Service  :  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  23,  44,  50,  51,  124,  130,  201,  375,  394,  396). 


PKNSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  1]7 

ACT  OF  JANUAEY  15,   1903. 

Sec  Kate  and  Uatix(;  :  No.  5  (15  P.  D.,  207). 

ACT  OF  MARCH  2,  1903. 

See  Amputation  :  No.  '2  (15  1*.  D.,  402). 
See  Disability  :  No.  10  (14  P.  D..  508). 
vSee  Rate  and  Rating  :  No.  10  (14  P.  D.,  524). 
See  Rerating:  No.  4  (14  P.  D..  215). 

ADMISSIONS. 

See  Adulterous  Cohabitation:  No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  357:  14  P.  D.,  84, 

219). 
See  Evidence:  No.  8  (10  P.  D.,  80). 
See  Marriage:  No.  3   (b)    (10  P.  D.,  297:  12  P.  D.,  312,  417)  ;  No. 

3  (e)   (10  P.  D..  423:  11  P.  D.,  139,  158:  12  P.  D.,  182,  338). 

ADJUDICATION. 

See  Nonresidents:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  437). 

ADULTEROUS  COHABITATION. 

See  Dependent  Parents:  Nos.  3,  10  (10  P.  D.,  153;  15  P.  D.,  335). 
See  Estoppel:  No.  4  (15  P.  D.,  47). 
See  Marriage:  No.  15  (13  P.  D.,  173). 

Index: 

1.  Generally. 

2.  Under  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

3.  Widow  not  entitled  on  account  of  minors. 

4.  Act  August  7,  1882,  construed. 

5.  The  widow's  admissions. 

6.  Evidence  required. 

7.  Forfeits  right  to  restoration. 

8.  When  forfeiture  commences. 

9.  Subsequent  morality  can  not  restore. 
10.  When  not  a  violation  of  the  act. 

1.  Generally. 

Adulterous  cohabitation — Act  August  7,  188^.  (Elizabeth  Smith, 
widow,  9  P.  D.,  324.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  from  1887  to  about  1898  the  appellant 
and  one  Daniel  Boston  lived  together  in  a  small  tenement  con- 
sisting of  two  rooms;  that  a  part  of  the  time  they  lived  there 
alone,  and  the  remainder  of  the  time  a  small  boy  lived  with  them ; 
that  it  was  the  general  opinion  among  their  immediate  neighbors 
that  they  were  living  as  man  and  wife ;  that  on  several  occasions 
the  appellant  stated  that  Boston  was  her  husband,  and  that  they, 
in  fact,  were  not  legally  married. 

Held:  That  the  facts  are  sufficient  to  justify  the  action  of  drop- 
ping her  name  from  the  pension  roll  under  the  act  of  August  7, 
1882. 


118  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

2.  Under  Act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Adulterous  cohabitation — Forfeiture,  (Ann  Fagin,  widow,  9  P. 
D.,  62.) 

The  adulterous  cohabitation  of  a  widow  subsequent  to  the  pas- 
sage of  the  act  of  August  7,  1882,  Avorks  a  forfeiture  of  her  pen- 
sion, or  right  to  a  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Adulterous  cohabitation.     (Matilda  Baker,  widow,  9  P.  D.,  116.) 
The  open  and  notorious  adulterous  cohabitation  of  a  widow 
bars  her  right  to  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  on 
account  of  her  husband's  death. 

Adulterous  cohabitation — Act  August  '/,  1882.  (Matilda  Ague,  9 
P.  D.,  327.) 

1.  The  provisions  of  section  2  of  the  act  of  August  7,  1882,  are 
applicable  to  widows'  claims  under  section  3  of  the  act  of  June 
27,  1890. 

2.  Adulterous  cohabitation  of  a  soldier's  widow,  on  or  subse- 
quent to  August  7,  1882,  terminates  her  pensionable  status  as 
effectually  as  her  remarriage. 

3.  Section  2  of  said  act  of  August  7,  1882,  is  in  no  sense  a  penal 
statute,  nor  is  it  to  be  construed  according  to  the  rules  of  con- 
struction of  penal  statutes,  but  is  remedial  and  is  liberally 
construed. 

3.  Widow  not  Entitled  on  Account  of  Minors. 

Adulterous  cohabitation — M^idoiv''s  increase  on  account  of  minors. 
(Elvira  Hall,  widow,  9  P.  D.,  17.) 

As  it  is  accepted  that  the  widow  has  no  title  to  individual  pen- 
sion under  act  of  June  27,  1890,  by  reason  of  open  and  notorious 
adulterous  cohabitation,  she  has  no  title  to  the  $2  per  month 
additional  allowed  the  widow  under  said  act  for  each  minor 
until  arriving  at  the  age  of  16  years. 

4.  Act  August  7,  1882,  Construed. 

Adulteroiis  cohabitation — Act  of  August  7,  1882.  (Kebecca  Kil- 
bee,  widow,  10  P.  D.,  286.) 

Adulterous  cohabitation  of  a  soldier's  widow,  on  or  subsequent 
to  August  7,  1882,  terminates  her  pensionable  status. 

Section  2  of  said  act  of  August  7,  1882,  is  in  no  sense  a  penal 
statute,  nor  is  to  be  construed  according  to  the  rules  of  construc- 
tion of  penal  statutes,  but  is  remedial  and  is  liberally  construed. 
Matilda  Ague  (9  P.  D.,  327). 

The  words  ''  adulterous  cohabitation  "  in  said  act  are  not  used 
in  their  strict  legal  sense,  but  in  their  popular  signification,  to 
indicate  the  open  and  notorious  illicit  intimacy  indicative  of 
immorality.     Alice  Gray  (7  P.  D.,  134). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  119 

5.  The  Widow's  Admissions. 

Adulterous  cohabitation — Evidence — -A dmissions — Special  Exam- 
iner's conduct.     (Annie  Snyder,  widow,  18  P.  D.,  857.) 

The  dropping  of  a  pensoner's  name  from  the  rolls  for  open  and 
notorious  adulterous  cohabitation  solely  upon  her  alleged  admis- 
sions to  a  special  examiner  is  error. 

It  is  not  the  province  of  a  special  examiner  to  seei^  to  entrap 
or  discredit  any  claimant.  His  duty  is  to  assist  in  obtaining  the 
facts  in  any  case  without  espousing  the  cause  of  either  the  claim- 
ant or  the  Government.  He  must  be  fair,  impartial,  and  diligent 
to  obtain  the  truth,  irrespective  of  who  it  benefits  or  injures. 

Adulterous    cohabitation — Evidence — Admissions.     (Emily    Clag- 
gett,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  84.) 

The  admissions  or  confession  of  the  claimant  in  this  case  do 
not  show  such  conduct  on  her  part  as  would  bar  her,  under  the 
act  of  August  7,  1882,  from  a  pension  under  the  provisions  of  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890,  as  the  same  was  not  open  and  notorious. 

AdvlteroHs    cohabitation — Special    examiner'^s     conduct.     (Annie 
Snyder,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  219.) 

The  only  evidence  of  open  and  notorious  adulterous  cohabita- 
tion by  chiimant  is  her  reported  confessions  to  a  special  examiner, 
which  she  swears  she  never  made,  but  that  said  special  examiner 
falsely  put  the  same  in  her  statement  and  did  not  read  that  part 
of  it  to  her. 

The  evidence  taken  on  a  second  examination  shows  claimant  to 
be  an  upright,  moral,  and  chaste  woman,  and  no  person  could  be 
found  who  had  even  a  suspicion  that  she  had  committed  an 
immoral  act. 

6.  Evidence  Required. 

Adulterous     cohabitation — Marriage    and    divorce — Impediment. 
(Annie  L.  Tripp,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  242.) 

1.  The  fact  that  claimant  kept  house  for  a  second  cousin  after 
his  wife's  death  and  lived  with  him  for  sixteen  years,  together 
with  the  testimony  of  one  witness  who  says  he  saw  them  both 
coming  out  of  the  same  bedroom  one  morning,  is  not  sufficient  to 
establish  the  claim  that  such  claimant  lived  in  open  and  notorious 
adulterous  cohabitation,  in  the  face  of  the  denial  of  each  of  the 
parties,  corroborated  by  the  evidence  of  the  postmaster  and  the 
near  neighbors  of  claimant,  who  say  they  never  heard  of  any 
immoral  conduct  between  said  parties,  and  that  they  were  con- 
sidered and  believed  to  be  upright,  honorable,  and  moral  people. 

2.  The  fact  that  claimant,  prior  to  her  marriage  to  the  soldier, 
lived  for  nineteen  years  with  one  Burch  in  the  relation  of  hus- 
band and  wife  and  bore  him  six  children,  coupled  with  the  fact 


120  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

that  they  separated  and  each  thereafter  married  again,  and  testi- 
mony showing  that  the  agreement  between  Burch  and  claimant 
was  that  they  should  live  together  as  husband  and  wife  so  long 
as  they  could  agree,  is  not  sufficient  to  establish  a  common-laAv 
marriage. 

7.  Forfeits  Right  to  Restoration. 

Adulterous  cohabitation — Act  of  August  7,  1882 — Marriage. 
(Julia  Eddington,  as  widow,  14  P.  D.,  362.) 

The  act  of  March  3,  1901,  is  dependent  in  many  respects  upon 
prior  legislation,  but  it  in  no  respect  repeals  or  modifies  the  act 
of  August  T,  1882. 

The  adulterous  cohabitation  of  a  widow  subsequent  to  the  pas- 
sage of  the  act  of  August  7,  1882,  works  a  forfeiture  of  her  right 
to  a  pension  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1901. 

8.  When  Forfeiture  Commences. 

Adulterous  cohabitation — Act  of  August  7,  1882 — Restoration — 
Estoppel — Termination — Minors.  (Ann  Spence,  widow,  15  P. 
D.,48.) 

Claimant's  pension  was  granted  from  August  10,  1879,  and 
made  to  terminate  on  August  6,  1882,  on  account  of  her  open  and 
notorious  adulterous  cohabitation  with  one  Hague.  As  her  adul- 
terous cohabitation  did  not  commence  until  September  22,  1883, 
she  is  entitled  to  pension  to  that  date,  though  pension  for  that 
period  was  paid  to  the  minors. 

9-  Subsequent  Morality  Can  Not  Restore. 

Adulterous  cohabitation  —  Restoration  —  Reformation.  ( Lucy 
'Brooks,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  96.) 

Appellant's  original  claim,  filed  on  January  31,  1898,  was  re- 
jected on  the  ground  that  she  had  forfeited  her  title  to  pension 
by  a  violation  of  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  August  7,  1882. 

A  second  declaration  for  pension  was  filed  on  March  18,  1902, 
supported  by  evidence  to  the  effect  that  claimant  had  been  of 
good  moral  character  for  the  last  five  years  prior  to  the  filing  of 
said  second  declaration. 

Held:  That  such  evidence  is  insufficient  to  support  a  claim 
after  the  appellant  had  been  dropped  from  the  rolls  on  the 
ground  above  stated. 

10.  When  Not  a  Violation  of  the  Act. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Act  of  August  7,  1882 — Impediment. 
(Watie  D.  Conklin,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  258.) 

Claimant  married  Harrison  Conklin  in  1862,  and  he  died  in 
the  service  in   1864.     John   Conklin  married  Jane  Conklin  in 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  121 

18G4,  and  while  she  was  living  and  undivorced  married  the  claim- 
ant herein  in  1866.  The  testimony  shows  claimant  to  liave  had 
no  knowledge  of  the  first  marriage  of  John  until  after  his  death 
in  1895,  having  lived  with  said  John  as  his  wife  for  nearly  thirty 
years,  and  having  reared  a  family  of  four  children. 

Held:  Claimant  is  the  widow  of  Harrison  Conklin,  and  is  en- 
tirely free  and  blameless  from  any  charge  of  open  and  notorious 
adulterous  cohabitation  with  John  Conklin. 

The  act  of  August  7,  1882,  is  founded  upon  a  condition  imply- 
ing vitiated  morals  and  a  lack  of  chastity,  and  does  not  reach 
those  whose  matrimonial  relations  are  illegal  from  an  abstract 
technical  standpoint  only  and  are  not  tainted  with  moral  turpi- 
tude. 

AGE. 

References. 

See  Disability:  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  179). 

See  Marriage:  subtitle  Michigan   (14  P.  D.,  .5.54)  :  subtitle  Ohio  (15 

P.  D.,  225)  :  subtitle  Tennessee  (12  P.  D.,  4(>8). 
See  Minors:  No.  5  (12  P.  D.,  512). 

Index. 

1.  As  a  cause  for  pension. 

2.  Military  age. 

3.  Over  l(i,  no  title  under  new  law. 

1.  As  a  Cause  for  Pension. 

Disability— Act  June  27,  1890— Age.     (J.  Louis  Will,  11  P.  D., 
179.) 

The  fact  that  a  claimant  has  attained  the  age  of  65  years  does 
not  entitle  him  to  pension,  per  se,  under  section  2  of  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  regardless  as  to  what  his  mental  or  physical  con- 
dition may  be,  and  such  was  not  the  view^  expressed  in  the  case  of 
Francis  P>ank  (9  P.  D.,  68)  ;  but  the  evidence  in  this  case  dis- 
closing the  fact  that  claimant  is  by  trade  a  pattern  maker,  and 
that  by  reason  of  age,  disease  of  heart,  limitation  of  motion  in 
knee  and  shoulder,  enlarged  veins  of  leg,  and  stiffness  and  limi- 
tation and  atrophy  of  hand  he  is  unable  to  follow  said  occupa- 
tion, the  action  rejecting  his  claim  was  error,  and  is  rev.^rse.l. 
(Charles  Stone,  8  P.  D.,  477,  and  William  Featherly,  9  P.  D., 
106.) 

2.  Military  Age. 

Desertion — Voidable  enlistment — Minors.     (Stephen  F.  Monthony, 
11  P.  D.,  198.) 

In  1861  the  enlistment  of  a  minor  under  the  age  of  18  years 
was  voidable,  and  a  repudiation  of  such  enlistment  on  the  part 


122  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

of  the  minor  by  the  net  of  desertion  would  constitute  no  bar  to 
pension  on  account  of  a  disability  incurred  during  the  period  of 
a  second  enlistment. 

Service — Enlistment — Military  age.     (Edward  E.  Napier,  11  P.  D., 
240.) 

This  claimant  being  over  18  but  under  21  years  of  age  at  the 
date  of  his  enlistment  in  June,  1861,  such  enlistment  was  valid 
and  binding  upon  him ;  and  any  disability  incurred  by  him  dur- 
ing the  term  of  such  enlistment  but  after  his  desertion  there- 
from and  while  serving  in  the  United  States  Navy  was  not  con- 
tracted in  line  of  duty. 

Desertion — Military    age — Oath    of    enlistment.     (Nathan    Loeb, 
alias  Nathan  Lyons,  11  P.  D.,  286.) 

Appellant's  name  was  dropped  from  the  roll  on  the  ground 
that  he  was  a  deserter  from  a  former  enlistment.  The  conten- 
tion is  that  he  was  under  16  years  of  age  at  the  time  of  his  first 
enlistment  in  September,  1863,  and  is  therefore  not  barred  on 
account  of  such  desertion.  In  his  oath  of  enlistment  he  reported 
his  age  as  18  years.     He  is  bound  by  this  action. 

3.  Over  16,  No  Title  under  New  Law. 

Minor'' s  pension — Age — Act  June  27^  1890.     (George  W.  Robin- 
son, minor,  12  P.  D.,  511.) 

It  appearing  that  this  appellant  was  over  the  age  of  16  years  at 
the  date  of  the  soldier's  death,  he  has  no  title  whatever  to  pen- 
sion under  the  provisions  of  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  June 
27,  1890. 

AGE  OF  CONSENT. 

See  Marriage:  subtitle  Ohio    (15  P.  D.,  225);   subtitle  Tennessee 
(12  P.  D.,  468). 

APPROXIMATE  AGE. 

See  Minors:  No.  5  (12  P.  D.,  512). 

AGGRAVATION  AND  RECURRENCE  OF  OLD  DISABILITY. 

See  Disability:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  133). 

AID  AND  ATTENDANCE. 

See  Commencement:  No.  13  (14  P.  D.,  209). 

See  Disability:  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  50). 

See  Jurisdiction  :  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  465). 

See  Helpless  Minor:  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  407). 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  Nos.  13,  24  (13  P.  D.,  192,  222). 

See  Pbactice:  No.  27  (13  P.  D.,  465). 


PENSION    AND    BOI^NTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  123 

See  Rate  and  Rating  :  No.  8  (1")  I*.  D.,  2<12). 
See  Reduction:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  244). 

Index. 

1.  Frequent  aiul  periodieal. 

2.  Rate. 

'\.  Facts  showing  aid  and  attendance. 
4.  Commencement. 

1.  Frequent  and  Periodieal. 

Aid  and  attendance — Rate — Dimhility.     (Ira   W.  Hay  ford,  9  P. 
D.,  807.) 

When  it  is  established,  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt,  that,  on 
account  of  pensioned  cause  or  causes,  or  any  pathological  sequelae 
thereof,  the  pensioner  is  not  only  "  totally  incapacitated  for  per- 
forming manual  labor/'  but  can  neither  dress  nor  undress  him- 
self without  the  aid  and  attendance  of  another  person,  as  is 
shown  by  the  evidence  and  certificate  of  medical  examination  in 
this  case,  the  Department  will  construe  the  said  aid  and  attend- 
ance as  such  "•  frequent  and  periodical  personal  aid  and  attend- 
ance of  another  person  ''  as  is  contemplated  by  the  provisions  of 
the  act  of  July  14,  1892,  and  as  w^arranting  the  allowance  of  the 
rate  prescribed  in  the  said  act. 

Aid  and  attendance — Rate.     (John  Johnson,  9  P.  D.,  349.) 

The  soldier  is  now  pensioned  at  $45  per  month  for  loss  of  right 
arm  at  the  shoulder  joint. 

It  is  both  claimed  and  shown  that  the  w^ound  which  caused  the 
loss  of  the  right  arm  also  caused  destruction  of  the  tissues  about 
the  shoulder  joint  to  such  an  extent  that  it  is  necessary  for  the 
claimant  to  wear  a  pad  or  some  other  means  of  protection,  in  tlie 
adjustment  of  which  the  services  of  another  person  are  required. 
^Held:  That  inasmuch  as  the  services  of  another  person  are  re- 
quired at  least  twice  daily,  in  the  adjustment  of  the  pad  whicli 
the  pensioner  is  compelled  to  w^ear  over  his  right  shoulder  for  its 
protection,  the  said  services  are  considered  as  such  "  frequent  and 
periodical  personal  aid  and  attendance  of  another  person  "  as  is 
contemplated  by  the  act  of  July  14,  1892,  and  warrants  allowance 
of  the  rate  prescribed  by  the  said  act. 

Aid  and  attendance — Disability.     (Frederick  P.   Goin,   9   P.   D., 
423.) 

Inasmuch  as  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  on  file  in  this 
case  warrants  the  presumption  that  the  prisoner  is  so  disabled  by 
reason  of  his  military  service  as  to  require  the  frequent  and 
periodical,  but  not  regular  and  constant,  personal  aid  and  attend- 
ance of  another  person,  the  action  of  reduction  from  the  $72  rate 
to  second  grade,  instead  of  to  the  rate  prescribed  by  the  act  of 


124  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

July  14,  1892,  was  error,  and  is,  in  so  far  as  the  amount  of  the 
reduction  is  concerned,  rev^ersed;  the  decision  of  October  24, 
189(),  affirming  the  said  a(;tion  and  departmental  letter  of  July 
28,  1897,  overruling  a  motion  for  reconsideration  of  the  said 
decision,  are  rescinded  and  set  aside,  and  the  j)apers  in  the  case 
are  remanded  for  readjudication  and  allowance  of  a  rate  com- 
mensurate with  the  degree  of  disability  shown  to  exist  and  be- 
lieved to  be  of  service  origin. 
Aid  and  attendance— Rate.     (Martin  B.  Fitch,  9  P.  D.,  481.) 

It  appears  from  the  evidence  in  this  case  that  the  disability 
of  this  appellant  resulting  from  the  pensioned  rheumatism  Avas 
practically  the  same  at  the  date  his  pension  was  reduced  from 
$72  to  $80  })er  month,  and  has  so  remained  since  that  date,  as  it 
was  when  he  Avas  given  his  present  rating  of  $50  per  month  under 
the  provisions  of  the  act  of  July  14,  1892,  and  is  and  has  been 
such  as  to  incapacitate  the  appellant  for  the  performance  of  any 
manual  labor,  and  necessitate  the  frequent  and  periodical,  but  not 
regular  and  constant,  aid  and  attendance  of  another  person : 

Held:  That  he  is  entitled  to  the  rating  of  $50  per  month  from 
the  date  his  pension  was  reduced  to  $80  per  month,  but  is  not 
entitled  to  restoration  to  the  rate  of  $72  per  month. 

2.  Rate. 

Aid  and  attendance — Rate.  (Eppenetus  W.  Mcintosh,  10  P.  D., 
172.) 

The  rate  in  this  case  was  reduced  from  $72  per  month  to  second 
grade  upon  evidence  adduced  upon  special  examination,  showing 
that  the  former  rating  w^as  excessive. 

The  soldier  is  pensioned  for  "  disease  of  spine  and  resulting 
curvature  and  insanity,"  and  it  is  contended  that  by  reason,  of  his 
mental  condition  it  is  necessary  to  have  an  attendant  secretly 
follow  and  watch  him  when  he  appears  in  public  for  his  protec- 
tion in  case  of  necessity. 

Held:  1.  That  such  personal  aid  and  attendance  of  another 
person  as  it  is  contended  is  accorded  the  pensioner  is  necessarily 
based  upon  apprehension  that  it  may  be — not  upon  the  fact  that 
it  actually  is — needed,  and  it  does  not  therefore  come  within  the 
purview^  of  the  provisions  of  either  the  act  of  March  4,  1890,  or 
the  act  of  July  14,  1892. 

2.  The  allowance  of  the  $72  rate  is  not  warranted  merely  be- 
cause insanity  happens  to  be  one  of  the  disabilities  for  which  pen- 
sion has  been  granted ;  but  the  degree  of  helplessness  specified  by 
law  must  be  shown  to  exist  before  title  to  said  rate  is  established. 
(James  Caton,  6  P.  D.,  159.) 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  125 

2.  Rate. 

Aid  and  attendance— Rate.     (Laban  W.  Mclnturff,  12  P.  D.,  77.) 

The  aid  and  attendance  that  appellant  requires  in  putting  on  a 
coat  or  shirt,  or  in  being  taken  home  occasionally  when  ex- 
hausted, is  not  such  as  was  contemplated  by  the  acts  of  July  18, 
1874,  June  16,  1880,  March  4,  1890,  or  July  14,  1892,  providing 
rates  of  pension  in  excess  of  $30  per  month. 
Aid  and  attendance— Rate.     (Laban  W.  Mclnturtf,  12  P.  D.,  299.) 

The  former  decision  in  this  case  (12  P.  D.,  77)  holding  that 
"  The  aid  and  attendance  that  appellant  requires  in  putting  on 
a  coat  or  shirt,  or  in  being  taken  home  occasionally  when  ex- 
hausted, is  not  such  as  was  contemplated  by  the  acts  of  July  18, 
1874,  June  16,  1880,  March  4,  1890,  or  July  14,  1892,  providing 
•    rates  of  pension  in  excess  of  $30  per  month,"  is  adhered  to  on 

motion  to  reconsider. 
Aid  and  attendance — Rate — Acts  of  March  S^  1879^  and  March  4, 
1890.     (Jacob  S.  Clark,  12  P.  D.,  70.) 

The  act  of  March  3,  1879,  as  amendatory  of  the  act  of  June  17, 
1878,  confers  a  statutory  right  to  the  $72  rate  upon  "  all  soldiers 
and  sailors  who  have  become  totally  blind  from  causes  occurring 
in  the  service  of  the  United  States." 

The  act  of  March  4,  1890,  provides  that  such  rate  shall  be  paid 
to  "  all  soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  who  *  *  *  become  so 
totally  and  permanently  helpless  from  injuries  received  or  dis- 
ease contracted  in  the  service  and  line  of  duty  as  to  require  the 
regular  personal  aid  and  attendance  of  another  person." 

Held:  That  inasmuch  as  the  facts  presented  and  the  evidence 
adduced  in  the  case  at  bar  not  only  show  that  the  appellant,  who 
is  pensioned  at  the  rate  of  $50  per  month  for  "  disease  of  eyes, 
piles,  and  disease  of  heart,  result  of  rheumatism,"  is,  for  all 
practical  purposes,  totally  blind,  but  that  he  also  both  requires 
and  has  the  regular  aid  and  attendance  of  another  person,  by 
reason  of  the  degree  of  disability  due  to  such  pensioned  causes, 
he  is  entitled  to  the  $72  rate  under  the  provisions  of  each  and 
both  of  the  said  acts,  from  December  13,  1899,  the  date  of  the 
certificate  of  the  first  medical  examination  showing  not  only 
entire  absence  of  all  useful  vision,  but  total  and  permanent  help- 
lessness as  well. 
Aid  and  attendance — Rate — Act  July  i^  1892.  (William  H. 
Jones,  12  P.  D.,  215.) 

By  reason  of  gunshot  wound  of  left  arm  and  injury  to  right 
groin,  received  in  the  service  and  line  of  duty,  resulting  in  a 
tumor  weighing  40  pounds,  claimant  is  totally  incapacitated  for 


126  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

the  performance  of  any  manual  labor,  and  requires  the  aid  and 
attendance  of  another  person  to  dress  and  undress  a  portion  of 
his  body,  in  taking  a  bath,  and,  at  times,  to  attend  the  calls  of 
nature. 

1.  Held:  That  he  is  disabled  in  such  a  degree  as  to  require  the 
frequent  and  periodical,  though  not  regular  and  constant,  per- 
sonal aid  and  attendance  of  another  person  contemplated  in  the 
act  of  July  14,  1892,  and  is  entitled  to  $50  per  month. 

2.  The  word  "  require,"  mentioned  in  the  act  of  July  14,  1892, 
should  be  given  its  ordinary  meaning,  which  is,  "  to  make  neces- 
sary "  or  "  to  need." 

Cases  cited:  Ira  W.  Hayford,  9  P.  D.,  307;  Harrison  B. 
George,  2()8  L.  B.,  410;  John  J.  Hill,  7  P.  D.,  142;  Edmond  O. 
Beers,  7  P.  D.,  113,  and  Peter  N.  F.  von  Ottendorfer,  3  P.  D.,  341. 

3.  Facts  Showing 

Aid  and  attendance — Rate — Evidence.  (Joseph  Lewis,  11  P.  D., 
473.) 

The  appellant  is  pensioned  at  the  rate  of  $30  per  month  (sec- 
ond grade)  for  gunshot  wound  of  left  arm  and  injury  to  left 
chest  and  resulting  disease  of  heart,  and  epilepsy. 

From  the  facts  presented  in  the  case  it  is  shown  that  he  has 
frequent  (almost  daily)  and  severe  epileptic  seizures,  necessita- 
ting the  frequent  and  periodical  personal  aid  and  attendance  of 
another  person. 

Held:  That  the  aid  and  attendance  of  another  person  which 
the  appellant  actually  requires,  as  well  as  has,  is  such  frequent 
and  periodical  aid  and  attendance  of  another  person  as  is  con- 
templated by  the  act  of  July  14,  1892,  and  entitled  him  to  the 
rate  prescribed  in  the  said  act  from  January  11,  1899,  the  date  of 
the  medical  examination  showing  the  necessity  for  such  aid  and 
attendance. 

4.  Commencement. 

Aid  and  attendance — Act  July  11^^  1892 — Eindence — Examining 
surgeons — Increase— Commencement.  (John  Blaisdell,  11  P.  D., 
503.) 

1.  The  disability  on  account  of  which  pension  was  granted, 
resulting  from  epilepsy,  manifested  by  a  clonic  spasm  of  the  ex- 
tremities, occurring  but  two  or  three  times  a  year,  is  not  deemed 
to  exist  in  such  a  degree  as  to  require  frequent  and  periodical 
personal  aid  and  attendance  of  another  person. 

2.  Increase  to  $50  per  month  under  the  act  of  July  14,  1892, 
can  only  commence  from  the  date  of  the  certificate  of  the  examin- 
ing surgeons  showing  such  degree  of  disability  made  subsequent 
to  the  passage  of  said  act. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  .  127 


ALABAMA  LAWS. 


ALIENS. 


See  Declarations:  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  292). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (c).     None. 

See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  10  P.  D. 


See  Disloyalty:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  72). 


ALLEGATIONS. 

See  Declarations:  No.  2  (11  P.  D.,  315). 

AMENDMENTS. 

See  Declarations:  No.  1,  2,  7,  9  (9  P.  D.,  40,  42,  93,  223,  272;  10 
P.  D.,  177,  365;  11  P.  IX,  315:  14  P.  D.,  93,  434;  12  P.  D.,  54;  15 
P.  D.,  529). 

See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  18,  100,  100,  194;  10 
P.  D.,  78). 

AMPUTATION. 

References. 

See  Disability:  No.  9  (12  P.  D.,  477). 

See  Pathological  Sequence;  No.  24  (13  P.  D.,  222). 

Index. 

1.  Rate,  how  determined. 

2.  Act  March  2,  1903. 

1.  Rate,  How  Determined. 

Amputation — Act  of  August  4,  J886.  (Samuel  Scott,  9  P.  D.,  TO.) 
The  nearness  of  an  amputation  to  the  shoulder  joint  or  hip 
joint  is  the  only  condition  to  be  considered  in  determining  the 
right  to  the  increase  of  pension  to  $45  per  month  provided  by  the 
act  of  August  4,  1886.  It  is  held  that  if  more  than  one-half  of 
the  humerus  or  femur  is  left  the  stump  is  of  sufficient  length 
to  permit  the  use  of  an  artificial  limb. 

Amputation — Act  of  August  4,  ^886.     (John  B.  Anderson,  11  P. 
D.,  1.) 

It  having  been  established  that  the  amputation  of  soldier's  arm 
was  made  "  at  or  above  the  middle  of  the  arm  bone  "  (humerus), 
the  failure  to  show  the  exact  line  of  section  does  not  affect  the 
status  of  the  case,  and  pensioner  w^as  entitled  to  a  pension  at  the 
rate  of  $45  per  month  instead  of  $36,  under  the  provisions  of  the 
act  of  August  4,  1886,  from  the  date  of  the  passage  of  said  act 
to  the  date  of  his  death.  (See  case  of  John  W.  Curran,  5 
P.  D.,  1.) 

Amputation — Act  of  August  4,  -^886 — Rate.     (Henry  M.  Capper, 
14  P.  D.,  264.) 
The  claimant's  leg  having  been  amputated  below  the  middle  of 


128  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

the  thigh  bone,  and  hence  not  "  so  near  the  hip  joint  as  to  prevent 
the  use  of  an  artificial  limb,"  he  was  not  entitled  to  the  rate  of 
$45  per  month  under  the  act  of  August  4,  1886. 

2.  Act  of  March  2,  1903. 

Disability — Amputation — Act  of  March  2^  1903 — Artificial  limb — 
Specific  dimbility.     (Aaron  W.  Kelley,  15  P.  D.,  402.) 

Claimant  was  pensioned  at  $36  per  month  for  the  loss  of  the 
left  leg  at  the  kneejoint,  when  his  rate  was  increased  to  $46  per 
month  under  the  act  of  March  2,  1903.  He  claims  $55  per  month 
under  said  act,  because,  as  alleged,  the  leg  is  in  such  condition  as 
to  prevent  the  use  of  an  artificial  limb. 

Held:  That  the  act  of  March  2,  11)03,  so  far  as  inability  to 
wear  an  artificial. limb  is  concerned,  refers  to  the  condition  of 
the  arm  or  leg  by  reason  of  an  amputation  between  the  elbow  and 
shoulder  joint  and  knee  and  hip  joint  only. 

ANTEREBELLION  SERVICE  AND  PENSIONS. 

Reference. 

See  Limitation  :  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  417). 

Index. 

1.  Disability— Origin. 

2.  Widow's  pension. 

1.  Disability — Origin. 

Anterebellion  service — Disability — Origin.  (Matteo  Bianchi,  de- 
ceased, 9  P.  D.,  220.) 

1.  Evidence  alone  that  a  claimant  was  treated  in  the  service 
for  the  disease  causing  the  disability  for  which  pension  is 
claimed  is  not  sufficient  to  establish  a  claim;  the  continuance  of 
the  disease  and  the  extent  to  which  it  disabled  for  the  perform- 
ance of  manual  labor  must  be  shown. 

2.  As  it  appears  that  the  disease  causing  the  disability  on  ac- 
count of  which  pension  was  claimed  was  contracted  prior  to 
March  4,  1861,  claimant  in  this  case  is  not  pensionable,  for  the 
reason  that  his  application  was  not  filed  within  three  years  from 
the  date  of  his  discharge  and  was  not  completed  prior  to  his 
death,  as  required  by  section  4713  of  the  Revised  Statutes. 

2.  Widow's  Pension. 

Widow^s  pension — Anterebellion  service.  (Elizabeth  P'ritz,  widow, 
9  P.  D.,  193.) 

It  appearing  that  the  alleged  death  cause  of  the  soldier  was 
contracted  prior  to  March  4,  1861,  in  time  of  peace,  and  not  in 
service  during  any  war,  there  is  no  provision  of  law  granting 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  129 

pension  to  his  widow.      (See  Digest  1897,  p.  500,  2  (a),  and  de- 
cisions there  cited.) 

APOPLEXY. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  459). 

APPEALS. 

References. 

See  Attorneys  :  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  191 ;  13  P.  D.,  413 ;  14  P.  D.,  83). 

See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  15  (14  P.  D.,  472;  15  P.  D.,  218,  298). 

See  Evidence:  No.  11  (11  P.  D.,  523,  524). 

See  Fee:  No.  13  (10  P.  D.,  464). 

See  Limitation  :  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  152). 

See  Practice:  Nos.  1,  5,  10,  14,  17,  22,  24  (9  P.  D.,  64,  399;  10  P.  D., 

458 :  13  P.  D.,  40 ;  11  P.  D.,  325 :  12  P.  D.,  44,  157,  225,  411 ;  13  P.  D., 

299 ;  14  P.  D.,  364 ;  15  P.  D.,  96,  .362). 
See  Rerating:  No.  6  (15  P.  D.,  299,  332,  333). 

Index. 

1.  Power  of  attorney  requisite. 

2.  Can  not  ai)i)eal  from  a  letter. 

3.  Must  specify  claim  and  the  issue. 

4.  Refusal  to  recognize  fee  agreements. 

5.  Typewritten  signature  nil. 

6.  Where  widow  adopts  appeal. 

7.  Rerating. 

8.  Attorney's  opinion  not  sufficient. 

1.  Power  of  Attorney  Requisite. 

Appeal — Attorneyship — Practice.  (James  E.  Oram,  9  P.  D.,  132.) 
More  than  ninety  days  having  elapsed  since  the  attorney  who 
filed  this  appeal  was  notified  that  he  was  not  entitled  to  recogni- 
tion, and  he  has  filed  no  appeal  in  his  own  behalf,  the  appeal 
will  be  dismissed  under  rule  1,  Rules  of  Practice,  upon  the  ground 
that  said  attorney  has  not  filed  a  power  of  attorney  authorizing 
him  to  enter  the  appeal. 

2.  Can  Not  Appeal  from  a  Letter. 

Appeal — Practice — Final  action.     (Minors  of  William  Hockey,  9 
P.  D.,  164.) 

A  letter  from  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions,  in  response  to  a 
communication,  reciting  former  action  of  the  Bureau  from  which 
claimant  had  previously  appealed,  and  which  action  had  been 
affirmed  on  appeal  and  reaffirmed  on  motion  for  reconsideration, 
is  not  such  final  action  of  the  Pension  Bureau  as  will  furnish  a 
basis  for  another  appeal. 

3.  Must  Specify  Claim  and  the  Issue. 

Appeals— Practice.     (Archibald  F.  Thomas,  10  P.  D.,  374.) 
13070—06 9 


130  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Where  more  than  one  claim  by  the  same  chiimant  is  involved 
in  an  adjudication  an  attorney  in  his  appeal  must  specify  which 
claim  he  desires  reviewed. 
Appeals — Rerating — Act    March    6,    1896.     (Wesley    Dalrymple, 
claimant;  H.  D.  Phillips,  attorney,  10  P.  D.,  250.) 

1.  In  considering  claims  under  the  act  of  March  6,  189G,  before 
the  commencement  of  pension,  granted  after  a  former  claim  had 
been  rejected,  may  date  from  date  of  filing  such  first  declaration, 
it  must  be  shown  not  only  that  at  the  date  of  filing  such  declara- 
tion he  was  suffering  from  a  disability,  but  that  such  disability 
must  be  of  a  permanent  character,  rendering  him  unable  to  earn 
a  support. 

2.  The  printed  form  of  appeal  filed  by  H.  D.  Phillips  in  this 
and  numerous  other  cases  will  not  hereafter  be  considered,  unless 
it  contains  material  averments  in  addition  to  the  printed  matter, 
as  it  does  not  present  any  issue  of  fact  and  the  issue  of  law  has 
been  decided. 

4.  Refusal  to  Recognize  Fee  Agreements. 

Appeal  —  Review  —  Fee  agreertients  —  Difjiculty  and  trouble, 
(Annie  Higgins,  widow,  claimant;  Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  at- 
torneys, 11  P.  D.,  519.) 

Upon  appeal  the  papers  in  a  claim  will  not  be  reviewed  to 
determine  whether  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  properly  re- 
fused to  recognize  articles  of  agreement  in  a  claim  of  difficulty 
and  trouble,  unless  the  facts  as  received  on  appeal  present  such 
showing  as  would  Avarrant  the  belief  that  gross  injustice  has  been 
done  in  refusing  to  recognize  articles  of  agreement. 

5.  Typewritten  Signature  Nil. 

Appeal — Typewritten  signature  of  attorney.  (Katie  Cousens,  13 
P.  D.,  400.) 

As  a  general  rule,  an  attorney's  appeal  on  the  merits  of  a  claim 
which  is  signed  only  in  typewriting  will  not  be  entertained  unless 
accompanied  by  a  duly  executed  power  of  attorney  from  the 
claimant  authorizing  such  attorney  to  appeal,  and  will  then  be 
accepted  as  sufficient  only  for  a  review  of  such  claim  on  its  merits. 

6.  Where  Widow  Adopts  Appeal. 

Appeal — Practice — Increase — Disahility — Third  Grade — Evidence. 
(William  McCracken,  13  P.  D.,  170.) 

1.  Where  the  attorney  of  record  files  an  appeal  in  an  invalid 
claim  after  a  soldier's  death,  and  the  surviving  widow  thereafter 
executes  a  power  of  attorney  to  the  same  attorney  empowering 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  131 

him  to  prosecute  said  appeal  and  claim,  she  adopts  said  appeal 
as  her  own,  and  from  that  time  on  such  attorney  represents  the 
widow  and  not  the  deceased  soldier,  and  said  appeal  will  be 
treated  as  a  valid  subsisting  appeal  made  by  the  widow. 

2.  Soldier  was  pensioned  under  the  general  law^  at  the  rate  of 
$17  per  month  by  reason  of  a  disability  resulting  from  right 
inguinal  hernia,  rheumatism,  and  resulting  disease  of  the  heart. 
On  August  15,  1900,  he  filed  a  claim  for  increase,  which  w^as  re- 
jected on  June  29,  1901,  on  the  ground  that  $17  per  month  was 
commensurate  to  existing  disability  due  to  the  causes  on  account 
of  which  he  was  pensioned.  It  is  held  that  said  action  was 
erroneous  for  the  reason  that  the  certificate  of  medical  examina- 
tion held  under  the  pending  claim  disclosed  the  existence  of  a 
disability  which  was  equivalent  to  the  loss  of  a  hand  or  a  foot. 

7.  Berating. 

Practice — Appeal — Rerating — Dismissal.     (Fieldon  Sexton,  15  P. 
D.,  265.) 

1.  Four  separate  claims  for  increase  under  the  general  law 
were  filed  and  rejected  in  this  case  prior  to  filing  this  appeal, 
which  fails  to  specify  the  rejection  complained  of,  and  it  being 
impractical  to  determine  to  which  one  the  appeal  relates,  the 
same,  in  so  far  as  it  relates  to  said  actions,  is  dismissed. 

2.  Where  an  appeal  from  the  rate  of  pension  allowed  under  a 
claim  for  increase,  also  includes  an  objection  to  a  rate  granted 
under  a  prior  claim  or  claims  for  increase  under  the  same  law, 
that  part  of  the  appeal  relating  to  the  former  adjudication  will 
be  ignored,  claimant's  remedy  being  a  claim  for  rerating.  See 
case  of  Joseph  A.  Reese  (731  P.  L.  B.,  238). 

3.  In  this  case  the  admission  of  the  claim  under  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  and  fixing  the  rate  of  pension  thereunder,  was  a 
final  action,  and  the  filing  of  a  claim  for  rerating  as  a  prelim- 
inary to  appeal  was  unnecessary,  as  an  appeal  lies  from  the  action 
fixing  the  rate. 

8.  Attorney's  Opinion  not  Sufficient. 

Practice — Appeal — Dismissal.     (John  Clark,  15  P.  D.,  410.) 

A  mere  opinion  of  an  attorney  that  a  pensioner  is  entitled  to 
more  than  the  rate  allowed  is  not  such  a  pointing  out  of  error  of 
law  or  fact  in  the  action  of  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  as  will 
entitle  to  consideration  of  an  appeal  under  rule  2  of  the  Rules  of 
Practice. 

APPOINTED  MAN. 

See  Desertion  :  No,  4  (d)   (15  P,  D.,  215). 


132  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

APPOINTMENT. 

See  JuBiSDiCTiON  :  No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  416). 

APPLICATIONS. 

See  Fee:  No.  18  (12  P.  D.,  5). 

ARMY  NURSES. 

Army  nurses^Service.  (Millie,  alias  Minnie,  Howard,  now 
Payne,  9  P.  D.,  188.) 

Claimant  admits,  and  the  evidence  shows,  her  work  while  in 
the  hospital  at  Washington,  D.  C,  during  the  war,  was  cleaning 
said  hospital;  gathering,  washing,  and  putting  away  for  use  the 
bandages  and  bed  clothing  used  therein ;  carrying  out  slops,  and 
such  general  work  as  directed ;  the  personal  attendance  upon  and 
care  for  and  administering  of  medicines  to  the  inmates  being  by 
white  nurses  only.     Claimant  is  colored. 

Held:  Claimant's  services  were  not  "  nurse  "  services  as  contem- 
plated by  the  act  of  August  5,  1892. 

ARKANSAS  LAWS. 

See  LEGrriMACY  :  No.  5  {VI  P.  D.,  102). 

See  Marriage:  Subtitle  Arkansas  (15  P.  D.,  223,  488). 

See  Divorce:  No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  406). 

ARTIFICIAL  LIMB. 

See  Amputation  :  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  402). 

ARREARS. 

See  Commencement  :  No.  12  (12  P.  D.,  49). 

See  Construction  of  Statutes:  No.  2  (10  P.  D.,  99). 

ARTERIO  SCLEROSIS. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  453). 

ARTICLES  OF  SEPARATION. 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  364). 

ARIZONA  TERRITORY,  LAWS  OF. 

See  Divorce:  No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  226). 

ASSIGNMENT. 

See  Attorneys  :  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  143;  14  P.  D.,  186). 

ASTHMA. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  3  (12  P.  D.,  443). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  183 

ATTENDING  PHYSICIAN. 

See  Evidence:  No.  12  (11  P.  D.,  301). 

ATTESTATION. 

See  Attorneys  :  No.  5  (9  P.  D.,  362). 

ATAXIC  PAEAPLEGIA. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  16  (14  P.  D.,  (542). 

ATTORNEYS. 

Refefences. 

See  Appeals  :  Nos.  1,  .3,  4,  5,  6  (0  P.  D.,  1,32;  10  P.  D.,  374,  2.50;  11  P. 

D.,  519;  13  P.  D.,  400,  170). 
See  Dependent  Parents  :  No.  9  (15  P.  D.,  172). 
See  Division  of  Pension  :  No.  13  (13  P.  D.,  2.33). 
See  Fee:  Nos.  6,  7.  9,  11,  16,  17,  18,  23  (9  P.  D.,  Ill;  10  P.  D.,  144;  9 

P.  D.,  170,  377 ;  10  P.  D.,  357 ;  12  P.  D..  2.39 ;  11  P.  D.,  496 ;  11  P. 

D.,  392  ;  12  P.  D.,  5,  29 ;  14  P.  D.,  276). 
See  Fee  Agreement:  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  150). 
See  Limitation  :  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  421). 
See  Practice:  Nos.  8,  20,  26  (10  P.  D.,  390;  13  P.  D.,  206). 
Index. 

1 .  Assignment  of  attorneyship. 

2.  Abandonment  of  claim  by. 

3.  Contract  for  illegal  fee  void. 

4.  Death  of  claimant. 

5.  Defective  power  of  attorney  void. 

6.  Examination  of  papers  and  evidence  by. 

7.  Entitled  to  fee. 

8.  Evidence — vicious  habits. 
■         .            9.  Forfeiture  by. 

10.  Fee. 

11.  Material  service. 

12.  Must  collect  fee  from  claimant.     - 

13.  Neglect  generally. 

14.  Neglect  by,  in  increase  claims. 

15.  No  power  of  attorney — no  fee. 

16.  Power  of  attorney  when  operative. 

17.  Representatives  of. 

18.  Recognition  of. 

19.  Who  recognized  in  elective  claims. 

20.  Recognition  of,  operates  to  restore  when. 

1.  Assignment  of  Attorneyship. 

AttoTmeyship  —  Assignment  —  Substitution.  (John  W.  Short, 
claimant;  James  T.  Knowland  &  Son,  attorneys,  10  P.  D.,  143.) 
"  The  written  consent  of  a  claimant  is  declared  essential  to  a 
valid  assignment  of  an  attorneyship  or  agency  from  one  attorney 
or  agent  to  another  *  *  *  ^?  (Rule  2,  Rules  of  Practice  be- 
fore the  Commissioner  of  Pensions.) 


134  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Attorney shij)  —  Substitution  —  Power  of  Attorney.  (Minors  of 
James  T.  Kyle,  claimants;  W.  W.  Dndley  &  Co.,  attorneys,  14 
P.  D.,  186.)  * 

For  the  purpose  of  transferring  the  attorneyship  in  a  claim  for 
pension  by  one  attorney  or  agent  to  another  it  is  not  necessary 
that  an  attorney  be  clothed  with  power  of  substitution  by  the 
claimant.     (Overruling  Esther  Geddings,  30  F.  P.  L. ;  Bk.,  374.) 

2.  Abandonment  of  Claim  by. 

Attorneyship — Abandonment — Practice.  (Hardy  (libson,  claim- 
ant, Mark  W.  Brown,  attorney,  15  P.  D.,  109.) 

The  statement  by  an  attorney  in  his  certificate  to  the  verifica- 
tion of  an  affidavit  by  a  witness,  before  him  as  such  officer,  that 
he  was  in  no  wise  interested  in  the  claim  for  pension  described 
in  said  affidavit,  or  connected  with  its  prosecution,  is  conclusive 
upon  the  question  as  to  his  abandonment  of  the  claim  if  he  has 
been  connected  with  its  prosecution. 

3.  Contract  for  Illegal  Fee  Void. 

Fee — Attorneys — Fee  contracts — Act  June  27^  1890.  (Antonio 
Romero,  claimant,  Jose  L.  Ribera,  attorney,  15  P.  D.,  184.) 

A  contract  between  a  claimant  and  an  agent  or  attorney  for  the 
payment  of  a  fee  in  excess  of  $10  in  a  claim  under  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  is  invalid. 

4.  Death  of  Claimant. 

Attorneyship — Death  of  client.  (Margaret  Hawkins,  widow,  10 
P.  D.,  191.) 

Where  a  claimant  dies  prior  to  the  final  rejection  of  pension 
claim  by  the  Bureau  of  Pensions  the  authority  of  the  attorney 
of  claimant  is  terminated;  and  without  further  authority  from 
those  succeeding  to  the  right,  in  whole  or  in  part,  of  the  deceased 
claimant,  the  attorney  has  no  right,  power,  or  authority  to  appeal 
from  such  Bureau  action.  (See  cases  of  Phineas  D.  Judson,  8 
P.  D.,  185;  Americus  Mayo,  7  P.  D.,  531;  James  Keating,  il)id., 
280;  J.  Ambler  Smith  and  Samuel  H.  Lewis,  ibid.,  69.) 

Attorneyship — Death  of  claimant — Practice.  (Bates  T.  Certain, 
13  P.  D.,  413.) 

AVhen  a  claimant  dies  after  the  claim  has  been  rejected,  those 
prosecuting  such  claim  under  a  power  of  attorney  can  not 
further  prosecute  said  claim  without  first  procuring  a  power  of 
attorney  so  to  do  from  those  succeeding  to  the  right. 

Atto7meys — Appeals — Practice — Death  of  principal.  (Charles  E. 
Landon,  14  P.  D.,  83.) 

1.  Where,  during  the  lifetime  of  his  principal,  the  attorney  of 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  135 

record  files  an  appeal  in  his  behalf,  the  act  being  the  act  of  the 
principal  under  the  law  of  agency,  the  appeal  is  properly  before 
this  Department  and  may  not  be  dismissed  on  the  ground  that 
the  death  of  the  principal,  subsequent  to  the  filing  of  the  appeal, 
terminates  the  relation  of  principal  and  agent.  In  such  cases 
the  filing  of  the  appeal  is  soldier's  act. 

2.  In  those  cases  where  the  claimant  dies  subsequent  to  the  ac- 
tion of  rejection  and  before  an  appeal  has  been  filed,  the  power 
of  attorney  not  surviving,  the  attorney  for  claimant  may  not  file 
an  appeal  because  the  agent  can  not  do  what  his  principal  can 
not  do;  and  the  principal,  being  dead,  is  unable  to  take  any 
further  step  in  the  prosecution  of  his  claim.  (Distinguishing 
this  case  from  the  case  of  Bates  T.  Certain,  13  P.  D.,  413,) 

5.  Defective  Power  of  Attorney  Void. 

Attorneyship— Power  of  attorney — Fee.     (J.  F.  Vinal,  attorney, 
Elishup  P.  Allen,  insane,  claimant,  9  P.  D.,  19.) 

1.  A  power  of  attorney  to  prosecute  a  pension  claim  executed 
by  a  claimant  after  having  been  judicially  declared  insane,  or 
while  confined  in  an  asylum  for  the  insane,  will  not  be  recog- 
nized, and  the  attorney  filing  the  same  should  be  so  notified. 
(Case  of  Joel  Ames,  8  P.  D.,  171.) 

2.  Evidence  filed  by  a  duly  authorized  attorney  when  not  en- 
titled to  recognition  is  actual  service,  and  it  inures  to  his  benefit 
if  he  becomes  entitled  to  recognition  at  any  time  before  the  claim 
is  prima  facie  complete,  and  may  entitle  him  to  a  fee. 

Attorneyship — Power  of  attorney.     (James  M.  Mulhollan,  claim- 
ant, W.  H.  Mussee,  attorney,  9  P.  D.,  38.) 

A  valid  power  of  attorney  filed  in  the  Bureau  at  a  time  when 
no  claim  is  pending  in  behalf  of  the  person  granting  the  same, 
and  to  which  it  may  be  applicable,  does  not  entitle  an  attorney 
therein  named  to  recognition  as  against  another  who  subse- 
quently is  duly  authorized  by  the  same  person  to  prosecute  a 
claim  for  pension  and  has  filed  one  in  his  behalf,  to  which  both 
powers  of  attorney  are  applicable. 
Attorneyship — Power  of  attorney — Attestation.  (Rebecca  C.  Vin- 
ing,  claimant,  9  P.  D.,  302.) 

A  power  of  attorney  to  which  the  signature  of  the  claimant  is 
not  attested  by  two  witnesses  confers  no  authority  upon  an  agent 
or  attorney  to  appear  in  a  pension  claim,  and  without  such  au- 
thority a  person  can  not  have  title  to  a  fee. 

6.  Examination  of  Papers  and  Evidence  by. 

Attorneys — Examination  of  record.     (H.  S.  Berlin,  9  P.  D.,  471.) 
The  practice  which  prevails  in  the  Bureau  of  Pensions  of  deny- 


136  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

ing  to  claimants  or  their  authorized  attorneys  the  right  to  exam- 
ine the  evidence  obtained  by  special  examination,  except  that 
relating  to  criminal  charges  and  investigations,  is  unjust  to 
claimants  and  unwarranted  by  law;  and  all  orders  or  instruc- 
tions which  have  that  effect  are  revoked. 
Attorneys — Examination  of  papers — Special  examiners^  reports — 
Evidence.     (William  C.  Lewis,  15  P.  D.,  163.) 

Attorneys  are  not  entitled  to  inspect  written  communications 
by  special  examiners  to  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions,  accom- 
panying the  return  of  evidence  adduced  before  them  on  special 
examination. 

7.  Entitled  to  Fee. 

Fee — Attorneyship — Forfeiture — Prima  facie  case.  (Annie  E. 
Meyers,  Avidow,  claimant;  Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  11 
P.  D.,  392.) 

AATiere  an  attorney  has  prima  facie  established  a  claim  for 
pension,  and  no  call  for  additional  evidence  has  been  made,  he 
has  earned  the  fee,  though  subsequently  to  his  death  another 
attorney  filed  evidence,  for  which  the  Bureau  could  have  issued 
a  call. 

8.  Evidence — Vicious  Habits. 

Attorney'' s  forfeiture — Evidence.  (Jerome  Fetterly,  claimant; 
Taber  &  AVhitman,  attorneys,  10  P.  D.,  460.) 

First.  Attorneys  are  required  to  call  up  a  pension  claim  within 
a  year  from  the  time  they  prima  facie  completed  it,  if  another 
attorney  has  appeared  in  the  claim  during  said  year;  but  if  no 
other  has  appeared  in  the  claim  until  after  the  expiration  of  said 
period,  then  the  attorney  of  record  will  have  preserved  his  rights, 
provided  he  has  filed  a  call  slip  at  any  time  before  the  appearance 
of  such  other  in  the  claim  and  subsequent  to  its  completion. 

Second.  Evidence  as  to  nonvicious  habits  is  not  required  in 
claims  for  increase  of  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
based  upon  disability  due  to  diseases  or  when  based  upon  dis- 
ability due  to  hernia,  varicocele,  and  varicose  veins  which  have 
developed  in  the  ordinary  pursuits  of  the  claimant  and  are  not 
due  to  traumatic  causes. 

9.  Forfeiture  by. 

Attorneyship — Forfeiture — Fee.  (Eliza  Jacob,  claimant;  J.  H. 
Vermilya  <&  Co.,  attorneys,  9  P.  D.,  213.) 

As  the  appellants  have,  under  rule  12,  forfeited  the  attorney- 
ship by  neglecting  the  case  for  more  than  one  year,  they  are  not 
entitled  to  further  recognition. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  137 

Attorney  ship — Fee.     (William  Boate,  claimant;  Milo  B.  Stevens 
&  Co.,  attorneys,  9  P.  D.,  375.) 

^^Tien  in  a  claim  for  straight  increase,  an  order  for  medical 
examination  has  not  been  obeyed,  and  the  attorney  of  record  has 
been  so  notified  and  takes  no  further  action  in  the  case,  and 
makes  no  satisfactory  explanation  of  such  failure  within  ninety 
days  from  the  date  of  such  notification,  he  is  held  to  be  in  neglect 
and  his  attorneyship  forfeited;  and  where  subsequently  another 
attorney  files  a  new  application  for  increase,  secures  an  order  for 
medical  examination,  with  which  the  claimant  complies,  upon  the 
allowance  of  the  claim  from  date  of  such  examination  the  latter 
attorney  should  be  paid  the  fee. 
Attorney shif — Forfeiture — Recognition.  (John  Quinn,  claimant; 
J.  B.  Cralle  &  Co.,  attorneys,  11  P.  D.,  25.) 

The  following  rule  laid  down  in  the  case  of  Ezra  Garner,  dated 
November  26,  1898,  and  in  the  case  of  John  Dennert,  dated  July 
30,  1898,  is  affirmed,  viz:  Where  an  attorney  who  has  been  rec- 
ognized by  the  Bureau  subsequently  has  been  denied  recognition 
does  not  appeal  for  recognition  within  a  reasonable  time  there- 
after, he  thereby  forfeits  all  rights  he  may  have  in  the  case  from 
the  time  he  w^as  so  notified. 

The  rule  does  not  contemplate  attorneys  contesting  for  recog- 
nition whose  rights  would  become  forfeited  upon  their  failure  to 
call  up  a  case  at  proper  intervals. 
Attorneys — Forfeiture — Recognition.     (Samuel  E.  Van  Antwerp, 
claimant;  C  E.  Foote,  attorney,  13  P.  D.,  444.) 

Where  an  attorney  has  rendered  no  material  service  in  a  claim 
for  more  than  one  year,  and  by  such  failure  is  in  default,  the 
Bureau  may  properly  refuse  to  accord  him  further  recognition 
although  the  claimant  has  not  appointed  another  attorney  to 
continue  the  prosecution  of  the  claim. 

10.  Fee. 

A  ttorneys — Recognition — Default — Material  Service.     ( William  H. 
Rhodes,  claimant;  W.  W.  Dudley  &  Co.,  attorneys,  14  P.  D.,273.) 

Where  an  attorney  has  rendered  no  material  service  in  a  claim 
for  more  than  one  year  and  thereby  becomes  in  default,  the 
Bureau  may  properly  refuse  to  accord  him  further  recognition 
although  the  claimant  has  not  appointed  another  attorney  to 
continue  the  prosecution  of  the  case. 
Attorneyship — Fee — Rule  13 — Appeals — Practice.  (Luther  C. 
Kane,  claimant;  Patrick  H.  Coney,  attorney,  14  P.  D.,  328.) 

When,  upon  the  rejection  of  a  claim  for  pension,  evidence  is 
filed  by  a  contesting  attorney,  bearing  upon  the  ground  of  rejec- 
tion within  the  time  allotted  by  rule  13  to  the  attorney  of  record 


138  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

to  file  such  evidence,  the  filing  thereof  inures  to  his  benefit  the 
same  as  though  he  himself  had  performed  the  service. 

11.  Material  Service. 

Attorneyship — Material  service — Neglect.  (James  K.  Polk,  attor- 
ney; Daniel  B.  Ford,  claimant,  9  P.  D.,  137.) 

1.  As  the  appellant  acquired  the  attorneyship,  rendered  mate- 
rial service,  and  was  not  in  neglect  when  the  claim  was  allowed, 
he  is  entitled  to  a  fee. 

2.  The  filing  of  a  declaration  in  response  to  a  call  therefor  by 
the  Bureau,  if  filed  at  a  time  when  deemed  necessary  and  mate- 
rial, though  subsequently  deemed  immaterial,  is  such  service  as 
may  entitle  an  attorney  to  a  fee. 

Practice — Evidence.  (Thomas  J.  Edwards,  claimant;  C.  E.  Foote, 
attorney,  9  P.  D.,  340.) 

Where  two  or  more  claims  for  pension  are  pending  in  behalf  of 
the  same  person,  instruments  of  evidence  filed  by  an  attorney 
will  not  inure  to  his  benefit  as  material  service  rendered  in  more 
than  one  claim  unless  he  indorses  upon  said  instruments,  or  sets 
forth  in  their  contents,  the  seATral  claims  to  which  they  are  in- 
tended to  apply. 

Attorneys  —  Material  service  —  Declarations  —  Increase.  (Alfred 
Carpenter,  claimant;  Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  11  P.  D., 
429.) 

AYliere  two  declarations  for  straight  increase  are  filed  in  behalf 
of  a  pensioner  they  do  not  constitute  the  basis  of  different  claims, 
unless  a  medical  examination  was  held  between  the  dates  on 
which  the  declarations  were  filed  or  unless  the  claim  based  on 
the  first  declaration  is  disposed  of  without  holding  a  medical  ex- 
amination, and  thereafter  a  second  declaration  is  filed;  with  these 
exceptions  declarations  for  increase  filed  subsequently  to  the  first 
until  a  medical  examination  is  held  are  but  duplicates  of  the 
first  declaration  and  the  filing  thereof  is  not  material  service. 

Attorneys — Fee — Material  service — Declaration.  (John  Fitzpat- 
rick,  claimant;  Patrick  H.  Coney,  attorney,  11  P.  D.,  490.) 

The  filing  of  an  amendatory  declaration  in  a  claim  for  original 
pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  at  any  time  prior  to  the 
holding  of  a  medical  examination,  is  material  service  and  may 
entitle  an  attorney  to  the  fee. 

Attorneys — Material  service — Order  No.  60.  (John  Benson,  claim- 
ant; Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  12  P.  D.,  221.) 

The  filing  of  a  declaration  in  a  claim  for  reissue  to  correct  the 
date  of  the  commencement  of  increase  under  the  act  of  January 
5,  1893,  at  any  time  prior  to  November  18,  1901,  the  date  of  the 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  139 

approval  of  Order  No.  60,  is  deemed  material  service  and  may 
entitle  an  attorney  in  such  claim  to  a  fee. 

The  filing  of  a  declaration,  motion,  or  evidence  by  an  attorney 
in  behalf  of  a  claimant  to  secure  reissue  to  correct  the  date  of 
commencement  of  pension  under  the  act  of  January  5,  1893,  at 
any  time  prior  to  the  allowance  of  such  reissue  by  the  Bureau  on 
its  own  motion,  is  deemed  material  service  and  may  entitle  such 
attorney  to  a  fee. 
Fee — Material  service — Attorneys.  (Uzal  Barker,  claimant;  Milo 
B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  15  P.  D.,  492.) 

The  filing  of  evidence  to  show  the  marriage  of  claimant  and 
soldier,  though  filed  in  the  widow's  claim,  was  material  service 
rendered  in  the  invalid  claim,  as  such  evidence  had  not  been  filed 
in  the  latter,  and  the  filing  thereof  was  necessary  to  show  title  in 
the  claimant  to  the  invalid  pension  which  had  accrued  to  the  date 
of  the  soldier's  death. 

12.  Must  Collect  Fee  from  Claimant. 

Attorneys — Fee — Accrued  pension  act  March  ^,  1895 — Payment. 
(John  C.  Hobson,  deceased,  claimant;  S.  W.  Daugherty  &  Co., 
attorneys,  11  P.  D.,  49.) 

An  agent  or  attorney  rendering  services  in  proceedings  under 
the  act  of  March  2,  1895,  in  behalf  of  a  person  entitled  under  its 
provisions  to  the  accrued  pension  on  a  certificate  of  pension  of  a 
deceased  pensioner,  must  look  to  the  person  by  whom  he  is  em- 
ployed for  payment  for  his  services.  Case  of  George  Aab  (9 
P.  D.,  377)  is  overruled. 

13.  Neglect  Generally. 

A  ttorneysJiip — Neglect — Practice — Forfeiture.  ( William  Easter, 
claimant;  William  Fletcher  &  Co.,  attorneys,  14  P.  D.,  172.) 

When  an  attorney  is  in  neglect  through  failure  to  file  evidence 
in  compliance  with  a  call  of  the  Bureau,  a  waiver  of  compliance 
therewith  subsequently  to  the  appearance  of  another  attorney 
in  the  chiim  does  not  operate  to  relieve  said  attorney  of  the 
charge  of  neglect. 

Attorneys — Recognition — Neglect.  (Robert  H.  Ball,  cLaimant; 
Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  14  P.  I).,  228.) 

An  attorney,  in  order  to  preserve  his  indioate  right  to  recogni- 
tion, nnist  render  some  service,  at  least  call  up  the  case  at  inter- 
vals of  one  year  or  less  until  he  is  formally  recognized  by  the 
Bureau,  or  until  the  claim  is  allowed. 

14.  Neglect  by,  in  Increase  Claims. 

Attorneys — Neglect — Fee — Increase.  (McKinzy  Harshfield,  claim- 
ant; Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  11  P.  D.,  492.) 


140  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

The  rule  that  Avheii  a  claimant  does  not  comply  with  an  order 
for  medical  examination,  and  thereupon  the  fiulure  of  the  at- 
torney on  notice  thereof  to  file  the  claimant's  request  for  the 
issuance  of  another  order  constitutes  neglect,  is  limited  in  its 
application  to  claims  for  straight  increase. 

15.  No  Power  of  Attorney — No  Fee. 

Attorneyship — Power  of  attorney — Practice.  (Anna  L.  McBride, 
claimant;  H.  D.  Phillips,  attorney,  9  P.  D.,  338.) 

As  the  appellant  never  filed  any  instrument  which  conferred 
upon  him  any  rights  in  the  case,  action  denying  him  a  fee  was 
proper. 

16.  Power  of  Attorney,  When  Operative. 

Attorneys — Power  of  attorney.  (Miel  Hilton,  claimant;  Milo  B. 
Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  13  P.  D.,  27.) 

A  power  of  attorney  in  a  claim  for  pension  becomes  operative 
only  from  the  time  complete  evidence  of  its  proper  execution  is 
filed  in  the  Bureau  while  the  claim  is  pending  to  which  it  is 
intended  to  apply. 

17.  Representative  of. 

Attorneys — Representatives  of  attorneys.  (Charles  and  William 
B.  King,  9  P.  D.,  478.) 

1.  Under  the  authority  conferred  by  the  act  of  July  18,  1894, 
it  is  suggested  the  instructions  of  the  Bureau  be  modified  to  the 
extent  that  representatives  of  recognized  attorneys  who  have 
written  authority  from  their  employers  be  granted  the  same 
privilege  of  examining  the  certificates  of  examining  surgeons  as 
is  provided  by  law  for  the  attorneys  in  person. 

2.  Hereafter,  under  section  471  of  the  Revised  Statutes,*  all 
orders  or  circulars  affecting  the  rights  of  claimants,  or  their 
properly  accredited  attorneys,  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Interior  for  his  information  and  approval  prior  to 
their  promulgation. 

18.  Recognition  of. 

Attorneys — Recognition — Act  March  S^  1899.  (Wife  of  Hiram 
A.  Davis,  claimant,  Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  10  P.  D., 
236.) 

In  a  claim  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  an 
attorney  is  entitled  to  recognition  upon  filing  proper  evidence  of 
his  authority  to  prosecute  said  claim. 
Attorneyship — Recognition.     (Joseph  Lane,  alias  Joseph  Simpson, 
claimant;  E.  S.  Weeden,  attorney,  11  P.  D.,  422.) 

When  the  Bureau  has  adjudged  that  one  of  several  contesting 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  141 

attorneys  is  entitled  to  recognition,  and  such  others  acquiesce 
in  said  decision,  further  recognition  can  not  be  denied  the  one 
and  accorded  to  any  of  such  others  on  the  ground  that  the  one 
did  not  conform  to  the  rules  in  regard  to  formal  service  at  a  time 
prior  to  the  decision  of  the  Bureau  upon  which  his  title  to  recog- 
nition is  based. 
Attorney — Recognition — Act  March  J,  1899 — Fee — Payment. 
(Margaret  E.  Davis,  claimant,  v.  Hiram  A.  Davis,  pensioner; 
Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  10  P.  D.,  403.) 

1.  The  Commissioner  of  Pensions  can  not  refuse  recognition  to 
agents  or  attorneys  regularl}^  employed  by  wives  or  minor  chil- 
dren of  pensioners  who  have  deserted  their  wives  or  children, 
under  the  act  of  March  8,  1899,  when  such  agents  or  attorneys 
are  authorized  to  practice  before  the  Department. 

2.  The  method  of  making  payment  to  agents  or  attorneys  for 
services  in  prosecuting  an  application  for  the  divided  payment  of 
a  pension  under  said  act  is  not  controlled  by  sections  8  and  4  of 
the  act  of  July  4,  1884  (28  Stat.,  98),  but  is  matter  of  agreement 
and  adjustment  between  the  parties,  over  which,  in  the  absence 
of  abuse  or  misconduct  on  the  part  of  the  agent  or  attorney  jus- 
tifying disbarment,  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  has  no  au- 
thority. 

8.  Agents   and   attorneys   rendering   services   in   proceedings 
under  said  act  must  look  to  those  by  whom  they  are  employed, 
and  not  to  the  Pension  Bureau,  for  payment  for  their  services. 
Attorneyship — Power     of     attorney — Recognition.     (Louisa      J. 
Hosier,  claimant;  E.  E.  Armstrong,  attorney,  15  P.  D.,  817.) 

In  the  absence  of  a  power  of  attorney  in  writing,  such  as  is 
specified  by  the  Rules  of  Practice,  an  attorney  is  not  entitled  to 
recognition  in  a  claim  for  pension. 

19.  Who  Recognized  in  Elective  Claims. 

Attorneys — Recognition — Practice — Election.  (John  Kite,  claim- 
ant; Lewis  Heininger,  attorney,  14  P.  D.,  269.) 

A  claim  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  which  has  been  ap- 
l^roved  for  admission  and  the  issue  of  certificate  is  subject  to  the 
election  of  soldier  to  receive  pension  under  said  act,  and,  when 
he  does  not  elect  to  receive  pension  thereunder,  is  the  same  as  a 
rejected  claim  with  respect  to  the  rights  of  attorneys  appearing 
therein  and  of  those  who  subsequently  file  claims  for  pension 
under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  in  his  behalf. 

The  action  of  the  Bureau,  therefore,  in  refusing  to  accord  rec- 
ognition to  the  appellant,  he  being  the  first  to  file  a  valid  decla- 
ration and  power  of  attorney  subsequently  to  the  admission  of  a 


142  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

claim  in  which  the  issue  of  certificate  was  subject  to  the  election 
of  the  soldier  to  receive  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
which  he  did  not  elect  to  receive,  was  error. 

20.  Recognition  of,  Operates  to  Restore  When. 

A  ttorneyship  —  Neglect  —  Recognition  —  Fee.  ( Charles  Evans, 
claimant;  Daniel  L.  Bedinger,  attorney,  15  P.  D.,  359.) 

The  recognition  by  the  Bureau,  in  a  claim  for  pension,  of  an 
attorney  who  is  in  neglect  at  a  time  when  another  is  entitled  to 
recognition  will  operate  to  restore  the  former  to  his  attorney- 
ship rights  upon  the  default  of  the  latter. 

BACTERIOLOGY. 

Seo  Death  Cause:  No.  11  (12  P.  D.,  342). 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  118). 

BEATY'S  INDEPENDENT  SCOUTS. 

See  Service:  No.  G  (9  P.  D.,  297;  11  P.  D.,  141). 

BLINDNESS. 

See  Line  of  Duty  :  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  87G;  12  P.  D.,  269). 
See  Pathological  Sequence:  Nos.  14,  20  (13  P.  D.,  307;  11  P.  D., 
307). 

BOUNTY. 

See  Desertion  :  No.  4  (b)  (14  P.  D.,  375,  380,  466;  15  P.  D.,  116,  525). 

BOUNTY  LAND. 

References. 

See  Digest  of  1897,  title  "  Bounty  land." 

Index. 

1.  Section  2444,  Revised  Statutes. 

2.  Not  entitled  to  over  160  acres. 

3.  What  service  entitles. 

4.  When  title  lapses. 

1.  Section  2444,  Revised  Statutes. 

Bounty  land — Lost  warrant — Section  2Ii,Jf,i.,  Revised  Statutes. 
(Sister  of  Ezekiel  Larkins,  deceased,  12  P.  D.,  184.) 

The  question  of  the  validity  of  a  warrant  is  not  affected  by  the 
fact  that  the  warrantee  was  dead  at  the  date  of  the  issue,  and  the 
decision  in  the  case  of  the  Heirs  of  Panter  Laws  (2  P.  D.,  o.  s., 
291),  and  cited  in  Digest  of  1897,  page  67,  which  held  that  "a 
warrant  issued  after  the  death  of  the  warrantee  named  therein 
is  void,"  is  hereby  overruled. 

The  action  appealed  from  in  this  case  is  reversed,  the  case 
reopened,  and  claimant  will  be  afforded  an  opportunity  to  prove 
the  loss  of  the  warrant  issued  to  the  soldier  February  26,  1852, 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  143 

2.  Not  Entitled  to  Over  160  Acres. 

Bounty  land — Act  of  March  3^  1855 — Service.     (Sion  Morris,  15 
P.  D.,  62.) 

The  claimant  having  received  warrant  for  160  acres  of  land  is 
not  entitled  to  warrant  for  any  additional  amount  because  of  ad- 
ditional service. 

3.  What  Service  Entitles. 

Service — Bounty  land — Act  of  March  3^  1855 — China.     (Thomas 
H.  White,  15  P.  D.,  147.) 

Service  on  the  U.  S.  S.  Plymouth  and  an  alleged  engagement  in 
China  in  1852  is  not  such  service  as  was  contemplated  by  the  act 
of  March  3,  1855,  and  does  not  entitle  claimant  to  a  bounty-land 
warrant  under  said  act. 
Bounty -land  service — Sections  21^.18.,  2Jf2Jf^  and  2Jf28  of  the  Revised 
Statutes — Acts  of  February  11^  181^7^;  and  March  3, 1855.  (Meta 
G.  Thornton,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  312.) 

This  claimant  has  no  title  to  bounty  land  under  sections  2418 
and  2424  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  as  the  deceased  soldier,  in  the 
Mexican  war,  was  not  a  commissioned  officer,  nor  title  under  the 
act  of  February  11,  1847,  as  he  served  under  a  twelve  months' 
enlistment,  for  less  than  twelve  months,  and  his  discharge  prior 
to  the  termination  of  the  war  was  not  because  of  wound,  injury, 
or  sickness,  but  upon  the  request  of  his  friends;  nor  title  under 
section  2428  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  or  under  the  act  of  March  3, 
1855,  because  she  was  not  a  widow  on  the  latter  date. 

In  construing  a  section  of  the  Revised  Statutes  which  is  of 
doubtful  meaning,  resort  may  be  had  to  the  original  law  from 
which  it  was  taken. 
Bounty  land — Act  of  March  3,  1855.     (Meta  G.  Thornton,  widow, 
15  P.  D.,  351.) 

Claimant's  husband  having  died  since  the  passage  of  the  act  of 
March  3,  1855,  without  filing  a  claim  for  bounty  land,  she  has  no 
title  under  its  provisions. 

The  Revised  Statutes  of  1873  do  not  enlarge  or  in  any  way 
modify  the  provisions  of  said  act  or  affect  title  thereunder. 
Bounty  land — Acts  of  Fehruary  11^  18Jt.7^  and  March  3, 1855 — Legal 
representatives — Service — Mexican  war — Construction.       (Meta 
G.  Thornton,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  561.) 

In  the  consideration  of  a  widow's  claim  for  bounty  land  under 
the  act  of  March  3,  1855  (sees.  2425  and  2428,  R.  S.),  it  is  imma- 
terial whether  the  soldier  died  before  or  after  the  passage  of  the 
act.  (Overruling  decision  in  the  case  of  Matilda  Kerren,  7  P.  D., 
443.)  The  claimant  is  not  entitled  to  bounty  land  under  said  act 
for  the  reason  that  her  husband's  service  was  not  performed  at 


144  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

the  seat  of  war.  And  she  has  no  title  under  the  act  of  February 
11,  1847,  as  he  was  discharged  before  the  expiration  of  his  term 
of  enlistment  and  not  by  reason  of  wounds  or  sickness. 

4.  When  Title  Lapses. 

Bounty  land — Succession — Title — Practice.  (Ernie  Sullivan,  ad- 
ministratrix, 14  P.  D.,  415.) 

Both  the  soldier  and  those  named  in  the  bounty-land  law  as 
successively  entitled  to  receive  a  warrant  on  account  of  his  service 
having  died  without  claiming  such  warrant,  the  title  thereto  has 
lapsed.  ' 

BOARD  OF  ENROLLMENT. 

Service — Commissioner  of  Board  of  Enrollment.  (Lucius  De  Witt 
Morse,  11  P.  D.,  183.) 

This  appellant's  service  was  rendered  as  a  commissioner  of  the 
board  of  enrollment  of  the  Second  Congressional  district  of  the 
State  of  Missouri.  He  filed  an  application  for  pension  under 
the  provisions  of  the  general  pension  law  on  account  of  disease 
alleged  to  have  been  contracted  during  said  service,  and  also  an 
application  for  pension  under  the  provisions  of  the  second  section 
of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  on  account  of  said  service. 

Held:  That  there  is  no  provision  of  law^  granting  pension  for 
disease  contracted  while  serving  as  commissioner  of  board  of 
enrollment,  and  that  such  service  is  not  a  pensionable  service 
under  the  provisions  of  the  second  section  of  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890. 

BRIEF  FACE. 

See  Practice:  Nos.  1,  23  (15  P.  D.,  486;  14  P.  D.,  162). 

BURDEN  OF  PROOF. 

See  Desertion:  No.  4  (b)   (14  P.  D.,  375). 

See  Evidence:  No.  1  (13  P.  D.,  437)  ;  No.  9  (11  P.  D.,  102). 

See  Marriage  :  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  446 ;  12  P.  D.,  296 ;  14  P.  D.,  17,  43). 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  15  (13  P.  D.,  112). 

CALIFORNIA  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  subtitle  California  (11  P.  D.,  144;  14  P.  D.,  265;  15 

P.  D.,  103)  ;  No.  11  (15  P.  D.,  459). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes. 

CATARRH. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  12  (13  P.  D.,  372). 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  21  (11  P.  D.,  480). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  145 

CATARRH  AND  BRONCHITIS. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  17  (14  P.  D.,  201), 

CATARRH  AND  GENERAL  PARALYSIS  OF  THE  INSANE. 
See  Death  Cause:  No.  12  (13  P.  D.,  372). 

CAYTJSE  INDIANS. 

See  Service:  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  396). 

CANCER. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  4  (12  P.  D.,  422). 

CASE  OF  DIFFICULTY  AND  TROUBLE. 

See  Fee  :  Nos.  8,  22  (10  P.  D.,  147;  14  P.  D.,  199). 

CAUSE  OF  DISABILITY. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  20  (11  P.  D.,  307). 

CEREMONY. 

See  Marriage  :  subtitle  Delaware  (14  P.  D.,  527). 

CEREBRO-SPINAL  SCLEROSIS. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  Nos.  1,  19  (15  P.  D.,  150;  10  P.  D.,  39). 

CEREBRAL  HEMORRHAGE. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  388). 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  3  (12  P.  D.,  443). 

CERTIFICATE  OF  DISABILITY. 

See  Evidence:  Nos.  7,  8   (10  P.  D.,  196,  319;  12  P.  D.,  264;  13  P. 
D.,  84). 

CERTIFICATE  OF  MEDICAL  EXAMINATION. 

See  Evidence:  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  333). 

Certificate  of  medical  examination — Rating^  Act  March  ^,  1895. 
(William  H.  Farmer,  9  P.  D.,  4.) 

In  the  absence  of  medical  examination  describing  a  disabling 
cause  it  can  not  be  presumed,  under  the  act  of  March  2,  1895, 
that  it  was  the  opinion  of  the  board  of  examining  surgeons  that 
no  pensionable  disability  existed. 

CHRONIC  DIARRHEA. 

See  Death  Cause  :  No  2  (15  P.  D.,  354). 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  Nos.  2,  14,  19  (12  P.  D.,  453;  10  P.  D., 
39;  13  P.  D.,  307). 

13070—06 10 


146  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

CHRONIC  ASCENDING  NEURITIS. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  23  (11  P.  D.,  151). 

CHEROKEE  DISTURBANCE. 

See  Service:  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  23). 

CHEROKEE  NATION. 

See  Divorce  :  No.  8  (12  P.  D..  474). 

See  Marriage  :  No.  8  (13  P.  D.,  308). 

See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  12  P.  D. 

CHOCTAW  NATION. 

See  Marriage:  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  283). 

See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  15  1*.  D. 

CHARITABLE  INSTITUTIONS. 

See  Dependent  Widow  :  No.  2  (12  P.  1>.,  40). 

CHYLURIA  PARASITICA. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  354). 

CIVIL  DEATH. 

See  Marriage:  No.  4  (i)  P.  D.,  5). 

CIVIL  CODE. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (p)   (15  P.  D.,  530). 

CIVILIANS. 

See  Service  :  No.  7,  18,  23  (9  P.  D.,  194,  300,  346,  347,  300,  460 ;  10  P. 
D.,  169,  182 ;  15  P.  D.,  366 :  12  P.  D.,  351 ;  13  P.  D.,  226). 

CITIZENSHIP. 

See  Marriage:  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  283). 

CIVILIAN  EMPLOYEES. 

See  Service  :  Nos.  7,  18,  23  (9  P.  D.,  194,  300,  346,  347,  360,  466;  10  P. 
D.,  133,  169,  182 ;  15  P.  D.,  366 ;  12  P.  D.,  351 ;  13  P.  D.,  226). 

CIRCUMSTANTIAL  EVIDENCE. 

See  Evidence:  No.  10  (10  P.  D.,  289). 

COHABITATION. 

See  Marriage:  subtitle  Kentucky  (12  P.  D.,  497);  subtitle  Massa- 
chusetts (14  P:  D..  456)  ;  subtitle  Michigan  (14  P.  D.,  417;  15  P. 
D.,  240)  ;  subtitle  Oregon  (11  P.  D..  427)  ;  subtitle  Virginia  (13  P. 
D.,  146;  14  P.  D.,  445)  ;  No.  10  (13  P.  D.,  338)  ;  No.  2  (e)  (15  P.  D., 
253,  493)  ;  No.  2  (r)  (15  P.  D.,  464). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  147 

COHABITATION  AND  REPUTE. 

See  Marriage  :  subtitle  Massachusetts  (14  P.  D.,  450);  subtitle 
Oregon  (11  P.  D.,  427)  ;  No.  2  (r)   (15  P.  D.,  464). 

COLORED  MARRIAGES. 

See  Legitimacy  :  No.  4  (15  P.  D.,  386)  ;  No.  7  (14  P.  D.,  474). 

See  Marriage:  subtitle  Florida  (14  P.  D.,  383)  ;  subtitle  Mississippi 
(13  P.  D.,  57;  14  P.  D.,  476)  ;  subtitle  South  Carolina  (15  P.  D., 
411)  ;  No.  7  (9  P.  D.,  127,  209)  ;  No.  15  (10  P.  D.,  36,  75,  157,  254, 
362,  441 ;  11  P.  D.,  167,  181,  443 ;  12  P.  D.,  159,  447 ;  13  P.  D.,  70, 
129,  140,  173 ;  14  P.  D.,  156,  288,  383,  436,  491,  537 ;  15  P.  D.,  11,  30). 

COLORED  PERSONS. 

See  Dependent  Parents:  Nos.  1,  4  (10  P.  D.,  104;  12  P.  D.,  131). 
See  Marriage:  subtitle  South  Carolina  (15  P.  D.,  411)  ;  No.  15  (10 
P.  D.,  157;  11  P.  D.,  181,  443;  14  P.  D.,  156,  288). 

COLORED  TROOPS. 

See  Service  :  No.  24  (15  P.  D.,  198,  281,  294). 

COLORED  OR  INDIAN  SOLDIERS  IN  KENTUCKY. 

See  Legitimacy  :  No.  4  (15  P.  D.,  386)  ;  No.  7  (14  P.  D.,  474). 
See  Marriage  :  No.  15  (10  P.  D.,  157,  441 ;  12  P.  D.,  159,  447). 

COLORADO  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  subtitle  Colorado  (15  P.  D.,  253;  15  P.  D.,  493). 
See  Divorce  :  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  434)  ;  No.  10  (15  P.  D.,  553). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  15  P.  D. 

COLLUSION. 

See  Divorce:  No.  10  (15  P.  D.,  553). 

COMBINED  RATES. 

See  Practice:  No.  23  (14  P.  D.,  162). 

See  Rate  and  Rating:  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  185;  15  P.  D.,  550). 

COMPOUNDING  RATES: 

See  Rate  and  Rating;  No.  6  (10  P.  D.,  2^1 ;  11  P.  D.,  165). 

COMBINATION  OF  CAUSES. 

See  Death  Cause:  Nos.  2,  5  (9  P.  D.,  113,  129,  266,  359;  15  P.  D., 
303,  354;  10  P.  D.,  202;  11  P.  D.,  62,  106,  220,  388,  459). 

COMMENCEMENT. 

See  Aid  and  Attendance:  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  503). 

See  Appeals  :  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  250). 

See  Declarations  :  No.  8  (14  P.  D.,  7). 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  No.  6  (12  P.  D.,  370). 

See  Fee:  No.  17  (13  P.  D.,  75). 


148  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

See  Increase:  No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  290). 

See  Limitation  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  160,  504;  14  P.  D.,  489). 

See  Practice:  Nos.  9,  13,  19  (10  P.  D.,  73;  11  P.  D.,  451;  13  P.  D., 

304). 
See  Rate  and  Rating  :  No.  7  (10  P.  D.,  443). 
See  Service  :  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  232)  ;  No.  22  (15  P.  D.,  548). 
See  Special  Act:  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  424). 

Index. 

1.  Under  act  June  27.  1890. 

2.  Under  act  July  14.  1892. 

3.  Section  4698i,  Revised  Statutes. 

4.  Increase  for  new  disability. 

5.  Under  section  4713,  Revised  Statutes. 

6.  Under  act  March  3,  1879. 

7.  Of  increase. 

8.  Under  act  January  3,  1893. 

9.  Under  acts  February  5,  1897,  and  January  5,  1893. 

10.  Acts  April  23,  1900,  and  January  5,  1893. 

11.  Under  act  March  30,  1898. 

12.  Under  special  act. 

13.  Under  act  March  4,  1890. 

14.  Under  act  May  9,  1900. 

1.  Under  Act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Commencement     rate — Reduction — Act    June    27^    1890.     (Galen 
Peters,  9  P.  D.,  102.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case  fairly  shows  that  a  pensionable  degree 
of  disability  entitling  claimant  to  $12  per  month  under  the  act 
of  June  27,  1890,  and  on  account  of  Avhich  he  was  pensioned  at 
such  rate  from  September  23,  1896,  existed  at  the  time  of  filing 
his  first  application,  July  9,  1890,  and  his  pension  should  have 
dated  from  said  first  application,  deducting  payments  made. 

Commencement,  Act  June  27, 1890 — Minors.     (Minors  of  David  S. 
Sharer,  deceased,  9  P.  D.,  189.) 

1.  Pension  to  minors  under  section  3,  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
must  commence  from  date  of  application  therefor. 

2.  Where  one  or  more  minors  is  insane,  idiotic,  or  otherwise 
permanently  helpless  he  shall  not  be  deprived  of  his  share  of 
the  joint  pension  upon  arriving  at  the  age  of  16  years  while  there 
are  other  children  under  that  age,  but  shall  continue  to  receive 
the  same  as  if  he  were  still  under  16.  But  this  rule  shall  apply 
only  to  future  payments. 

Commencement — Minors — Act  of  June  27, 1890.     (Minor  of  Joseph 

Speedy,  15  P.  D.,  79.) 

Pension  to  minors  under  act  of  June  27,  1890,  must  commence 

from  date  of  filing  claim  therefor. 
Commencement,  act  June  27,  1890 — Increase.     (Rollin  Ijewis,  9 

P.  D.,  216.) 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  149 

Pension  under  the  second  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
must  commence  from  the  date  of  tiling  of  the  declaration,  pro- 
vided a  pensionable  degree  of  disability  is  shown  to  have  existed 
on  that  date ;  but  where  such  pensionable  degree  of  disability  did 
not  exist  at  date  of  filing  the  declaration,  but  it  appears  that  sub- 
sequent to  the  filing  of  such  declaration  and  before  a  medical 
examination  was  had  an  applicant  became  pensionably  disabled, 
another  declaration  must  be  filed. 

Commencement  of  helpless  minor^s  pension  under  act  of  June  27^ 
1890.     (Minor  of  Jonathan  Talbert,  9  P.  D.,  226.) 

Pension  to  an  insane,  idiotic,  or  otherwise  permanently  helpless 
minor  under  section  3  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  can  not  be  made 
to  commence  prior  to  the  date  of  filing  the  declaration  therefor 
after  the  passage  of  said  act. 

Commencement — Act  June  27^  1890 — Minor'' s  pension.     (Minors  of 
Simeon  W.  Dare,  11  P.  D.,  431.) 

1.  The  construction  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  under  which  a 
minor's  pension  is  made  to  commence  from  the  date  of  filing  the 
application  therefor,  in  a  case  in  which  there  was  a  prior  widow 
pensioner  who  has  died  or  remarried,  is  adhered  to. 

2.  The  application,  filed  in  October,  1895,  which  was  rejected 
as  an  application  under  the  general  law,  is  held  to  have  been  an 
application  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  and  the  date  of  filing 
said  application  is  the  correct  date  of  commencement  of  the 
minor's  pension. 

Declaration — Act  June  27.,  1890 — Commencement.     (Mary  J.  Fisk, 
widow,  11  P.  D.,  162.) 

Pension  under  section  3  of  said  act  can  commence  only  from 
date  of  filing  of  declaration  subsequent  to  the  soldier's  death,  and 
a  declaration  executed  by  the  wife  prior  to  his  death  is  null  and 
void. 

Commencement — Act  of  June  27^  1890.     (James  McHarry,  11  P. 
D.,  510.) 

Original  invalid  pension  granted  under  the  provisions  of  sec- 
tion 2  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  must  commence  from  the  date 
of  filing  an  apj)lication  therefor,  and  the  action  of  the  Bureau  in 
commencing  the  pension  in  this  case  from  the  date  of  the  examin- 
ing surgeon's  certificate  of  examination  w^as  error. 

Commencement — Act  June  27.,  1890.     (George  W.  Prentice,  13  P. 
D.,242.) 

Claimant  was  pensioned  from  date  of  his  second  medical  exam- 
ination upon  his  original  application,  instead  of  from  the  date 
of  application. 


150  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Held  to  be  error,  and  that  his  pension  should  have  been  allowed 
from  date  of  his  application. 
Commencement — Act  June  27^  1890 — Declaration — Rate.     (Oscar 
B.  Edwards,  13  P.  D.,  352.) 

The  pension  was  properly  allowed  from  the  date  of  filing  the 
supplementary  or  amendatory  affidavit,  inasmuch  as  it  was  mani- 
festly impossible  for  the  claimant  to  prove  that  disease  of  heart 
(independent  of  which  he  was  not  disabled)  existed  at  the  time 
of  filing  the  formal  prior  declaration. 

The  rate  allowed  is  not,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Department, 
commensurate  with  the  degree  of  the  claimant's  inability,  to  earn 
•    a  support  by  manual  labor. 

Com^mencement  —  Declaration  —  Act  June   ^7,   1890.     (Christine 
Coomer,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  398.) 

The  w^idow  executed  a  declaration  for  pension  December  24, 
1900,  and  the  same  was  filed  February  4,  1901,  from  which  latter 
date  pension  was  allowed.  From  this  action  she  appealed,  con- 
tending that  it  should  be  allowed  to  commence  on  the  date  of 
executing  the  declaration  therefor. 

A  pension  under  section  3  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  can  com- 
mence only  from  the  date  of  filing  of  declaration  in  the  Pension 
Office  subsequent  to  the  soldier's  death. 

2.  Act  of  July  14,  1892. 

Commencement — Increase — Act  July  7^?  1892.     (John  M.  John- 
son, 9  P.  D.,  503.) 

There  is  no  authority  of  law  for  commencing  the  $50  rate  prior 
to  the  date  of  the  certificate  of  the  examining  surgeon  or  board 
of  examining  surgeons  showing  the  requisite  degree  of  dis- 
ability, made  subsequent  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  July  14, 
1892. 

C orrbmencement — Increase — Act  of  July  IJ^^  1892.     (John  Johnson, 
10  P.  D.,  66.) 

Increase  to  the  intermediate  grade  ($50)  provided  by  the  act 
of  July  14,  1892,  must,  by  the  express  terms  of  the  act,  commence 
from  the  date  "  of  the  certificate  of  the  examining  surgeon  or 
board  of  examining  surgeons  showing  such  degree  of  disability, 
and  made  subsequent  to  the  passage  of  ''  the  act. 

3.  Section  4698^,  Revised  Statutes. 

Commencement — Section   4698^,   Revised   Statutes — Grade    Rate. 
(Charles  H.  Flourney,  9  P.  D.,  259.) 

Appellant  pensioned  for  rheumatism  and  resulting  disease  of 
heart  filed  a  claim  for  increase  September  12,  1895,  which  w^as 
allowed  at  third  grade  ($24  per  month)  from  November  27, 1895, 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  151 

dato  of  the  certificate,  of  the  medical  examination  made  under 
the  pending  chiim.  lie  contends  the  increased  rate  should  com- 
mence from  October  24,  1891,  as  the  evidence  of  two  physicians 
showed  that  on  that  date  his  disability  w^as  equivalent  to  the  loss 
of  a  hand  or  a  foot.  It  is  held  that  as  claimant's  disability  is  not 
permanent  and  specific  his  increase  of  pension  was  properly  made 
to  commence  from  the  date  of  the  certificate  of  medical  examina- 
tion made  under  the  pending  claim,  showing  the  increased  dis- 
ability as  provided  by  section  4698^  of  the  Revised  Statutes. 
Commencement — Increase — Act  June  27,  1890 — Section  1^698^  of 
the  Revised  Statutes.     (John  Middleton,  14  P.  D.,  69.) 

Increase  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  must  commence  from 
the  date  of  medical  examination,  as  provided  by  section  4098^  of 
the  Revised  Statutes,  showing  an  increased  inability  to  earn  a 
support  by  manual  labor. 

4.  Of  Increase  for  New  Disability. 

Commencement  of  increase — New  disability.  (Stephen  Hiett,  9  P. 
D.,  313.) 

A\Tiere  a  pensioner  under  the  law"  of  July  14,  1862,  files  an 
application  for  additional  pension,  based  on  a  newly  alleged 
cause  of  disability,  not  specific,  such  claim,  if  allowed,  dates  from 
the  time  of  filing  such  application,  and  not  from  the  date  of  the 
examining  surgeon's  certificate  establishing  a  pensionable  degree 
of  disability  from  said  newdy  alleged  cause. 

In  such  cases  the  date  of  commencement  is  governed  by  the 
proviso  in  section  2  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1879,  and  not  by  sec- 
tion 4698^,  Revised  Statutes. 

5.  Under  Section  4713,  Revised  Statutes. 

Commencement — Sections  1^730  and  1^713^  Revised  Statutes.  (Wil- 
liam McClain,  11  P.  D.,  175.) 

Under  the  provisions  of  .section  4713,  Revised  Statutes,  pen- 
sion, if  allowed,  could  only  commence  from  date  of  filing  the 
last  material  evidence  necessary  to  complete  the  claim. 

6.  Under  Act  of  March  3,  1879. 

Rate — Dependent  relatives — Commencement.  (Eliza  Hodgman, 
mother,  11  P.  D.,  18.) 

A  dependent  mother  who  claims  by  reason  of  death,  of  service 
origin,  is  entitled  to  a  rating  of  but  $12  per  month  when  the 
origin  of  the  death  cause  was  contracted  while  soldier  was  a  pri- 
vate, notwithstanding  the  fact  that  said  soldier  afterwards  be- 
came a  commissioned  officer. 

The  right  to  a  pension  is  not  a  vested  right.     The  date  of  com- 


152  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

mencement  of  ji  dependent  mother's  pension,  under  the  general 
law,  is  governed  by  the  act  of  March  8,  1879. 

7.  Of  Increase. 

Commencement — Increase — Renewal — Act  June  27^  1890.  ( Andrew 
B.  Cleveland,  12  P.  D.,  17.) 

Appellant  was  a  pensioner  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  at 
the  rate  of  $6  per  month,  when  a  claim  under  the  general  law, 
filed  by  him  August  22,  1888,  was  allowed  at  the  rate  of  $6  per 
month  from  the  date  of  filing  the  claim,  and  his  name  was  accord- 
ingly dropped  from  the  roll  under  the  act  of  June  27-,  1890,  and 
placed  on  the  roll  under  the  general  law.  While  in  receipt  of 
pension  under  the  general  law  he  filed,  January  30,  1892,  a  claim 
for  renewal  and  increase  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  which 
was  allowed  at  $12  per  month  from  the  date  of  the  medical 
examination,  February  3,  1895,  and  his  name  was  dropped  from 
the  roll  under  the  general  law.  He  appealed,  contending  that  the 
increased  rate  of  pension  granted  him  should  have  commenced 
from  the  date  of  filing  his  declaration,  January  30,  1892. 

It  is  held  that  the  claim  for  renewal  of  pension  under  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  and  increase,  his  title  to  pension  under  said  act  not 
having  been  denied,  was  not  an  original  claim  under  said  act  and 
the  allowance  of  the  same  was  a  renewal  of  the  pension  originally 
granted,  and  that  the  increase  of  the  rate  of  pension  was,  under 
section  4698|  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  properly  made  to  commence 
from  the  date  of  the  certificate  of  the  medical  examination  held 
under  the  pending  claim  (citing  the  cases  of  George  Baltzer,  10 
P.  D.,  37;  Timothy  L.  Carley,  7  P.  D.,  12,  and  James  J.  Durkee, 
8P.  D.,  152). 

8.  Under  Act  of  January  5,  1893. 

Commencement — Increase — Act  of  January  5, 1893.  (Daniel  Web- 
ster Levan,  9  P.  D.,  322.) 

The  date  of  commencement  in  Mexican  war  claims  for  increase 
under  said  act  is  in  each  claim  the  day  on  which  the  case  is  legally 
approved  by  the  Board  of  Review. 

As  this  rule  was  followed  in  the  action  upon  this  claim,  the 
same  was  proper,  and  is  affirmed. 
Increase — A ct  of  January  J,  1893 — C ommencement.     ( Robert  Mark- 
wood,  11  P.  D.,  380.) 

The  increase  of  pension  provided  by  the  act  of  January  5, 1893, 
for  survivors  of  the  Mexican  war  who  have  been  pensioned  under 
the  provisions  of  the  act  of  January  29,  1887,  or  the  act  of  March 
3, 1891,  should  be  made  to  commence  from  the  date,  subsequent  to 
the  date  of  the  approval  of  the  act  granting  said  increase,  at 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  153 

which  it  shall  have  been  established  by  the  proof  that  the  con- 
ditions of  disability  and  destitution  existed  which  are  designated 
in  said  act  as  entitling  such  pensioners  to  the  increase  of  pension 
therein  provided. 

The  decisions  of  this  Department  of  May  19,  1894,  in  the  case 
of  Collins,  alias  Crossweight  (L.  B.  125,  p.  82)  ;  June  8,  1894,  in 
the  case  of  Harmon  (L.  B.  129,  p.  7)  ;  September  13,  1895,  in  the 
case  of  Hope  (L.  B.  182,  p.  400)  ;  and  May  7, 1898,  in  the  case  of 
Levan  (9  P.  D.,  322),' and  all  similar  decisions  and  holdings  are 
hereby  overruled  and  set  aside,  and  Order  No.  231  of  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Pensions  is  disapproved  and  abrogated. 

9.  Act  February  5,  1897— Act  January  5,  1893. 

Commencement — Act  of  February  5,  1897 — Act  January  5,  1893 — 
Mexican  war — Gray^s  battalion.  (Jasper  N.  Armstrong,  14 
P.  D.,420.) 

Members  of  Gray's  battalion,  Arkansas  Volunteers,  have  no 
right  to  pension  prior  to  the  act  of  February  5,  1897,  and  they  are 
entitled  to  a  $12  rating  under  the  act  of  April  23,  1900,  from  such 
date,  when  the  evidence  shows  them  to  be  in  the  physical  and 
financial  condition  required  by  the  act  of  January  5,  1893,  as  held 
in  the  case  of  Markwood  (11  P.  D.,  380). 
Same  case  in  14  P.  D.,  285,  modified. 

10.  Act  April  23,  1900— Act  January  5,  1893. 

Commencement — Act  of  April  23^  1900 — Act  of  January  5,  1893 — 
Mexican  war.     (Daniel  Eveland,  14  P.  D.,  40.) 

The  act  of  April  23,  1900,  in  extending  all  of  the  benefits  of  the 
act  of  January  5,  1893,  to  pensionable  Mexican  war  survivors  who 
are  entitled  to  a  service  pension,  carries  with  it  the  benefit  of  hav- 
ing the  pension  commence  from  the  same  date  as  those  under  the 
last-mentioned  act;  and  the  rule  for  such  date  is  found  in  the 
opinion  in  the  case  of  Robert  Markwood  (11  P.  D.,  380). 

11.  Under  Act  of  March  30,  1898. 

Commencement — Act  of  March  30^  1898 — &ea  pay — "  The  Maine.'''' 
(Harriet  Adams,  mother,  12  P.  D.,  428.) 

In  the  case  of  an  enlisted  man  killed  by  the  explosion  of  the 
steamship  Maine^  February  15,  1898,  his  sea  pay  for  one  year 
thereafter  can  not  be  paid  to  his  dependent  parents  under  the 
special  act  of  March  30,  1898,  and  a  pension  be  allowed  his  de- 
pendent mother  for  the  same  year,  or  for  any  portion  thereof. 

12.  Under  Special  Act. 

Commencement — Special  act — Arrears.  (Fidillar  White,  alias 
William  Johnson,  12  P.  D.,  49.) 


154  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

The  beneficiary  under  a  special  act  of  Congress,  if  the  act  does 
not  fix  date  of  commencement,  must  draw  pension  from  the  date 
of  said  act. 
Commencement — Special    act — Section     Jf720^    Revised    Statutes. 
(John  Vogler,  13  P.  D.,  331.) 

As  this  pension  was  granted  by  special  act  of  Congress  and  the 
act  did  not  specify  the  date  at  which  pension  should  commence, 
the  same  was  properly  commenced  from  the  date  oi  the  passage 
of  the  act,  in  accordance  with  section  4720,  Revised  Statutes  of 
the  United  States. 

13.  Under  Act  of  March  4,  1890. 

Commencement — Act    of    March    4?    1890 — Aid    and    attendance. 
(John  C.  Stevens,  14  P.  D.,  209.) 

Where  an  application  for  original  invalid  pension  was  filed 
subsequent  to  March  4,  1890,  and  the  claimant  was,  at  the  date  of 
filing  such  application,  so  totally  and  permanently  helpless  from 
injuries  received  or  disease  contracted  in  the  service  and  line  of 
duty  as  to  require  the  regular  personal  aid  and  attendance  of  an- 
other person,  he  is  entitled  to  receive  the  rate  of  $72  per  month 
from  said  date  (of  filing  the  application). 

14.  Under  Act  of  May  9,  1900. 

Commencement — Act    of   May   9,   1900 — Act    of   June    27^   1890. 
(Mary  D.  Gardner,  widoAv,  15  P.  D.,  328.) 

There  is  no  authority  in  law  for  making  the  date  of  commence- 
ment of  a  widow's  pension  under  the  act  of  May  9,  1900,  other 
than  that  of  the  date  of  the  filing  of  the  application  under  said 
act.  A  claimant  may  not  be  entitled  under  the  act  of  June  27, 1890, 
and  yet  be  entitled  under  the  act  of  May  9,  1900,  the  bases  of 
dependency  under  the  said  acts  being  different. 

COMMENCEMENT  OF  SERVICE. 

See  Service:  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  2.32). 

COMMISSIONERS  BOARD  OF  ENROLLMENT. 

See  Board  of  Enrollment  :  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  183). 

COMMISSIONER  OF  PENSIONS. 

See  Accrued  Pension  :  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  351). 
See  Jurisdiction  :  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  348). 
See  Medical  Examinations:  No.  2  (14  P.  D.,  450). 
See  Vicious  Habits:  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  427). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  155 

COMMON-LAW  MARRIAGE. 

C'onimoii-Iaw  iiiarriages  are  recognized  as  valid  in  all  the  States  and 
Territories  excepting : 

California. — Not  since  1895. 

Connecticut. — Status  doubtful. 

Delaware. — Not  valid ;  see  Payne's  Digest,  title  Marriage,  sub- 
title Delaware  (14  P.  D..  527). 

Kentucky. — Not  valid. 

Louisiana. — See  Payne's  Digest,  title  Marriages,  subtitle  Louis- 
iana (14  P.  D..  :}44). 

Maryland.— Not  valid ;  modified  ;  see  Payne's  Digest,  title  Mar- 
riage, subtitle  Maryi^ani)  (14  I*.  D.,  ~>'M))  ;  also  same  (15  P.  D., 
404). 

Massachusetts.— See  Payne's  Digest,  title  Marriage,  subtitle  Mas- 
sachusetts (14  1*.  D.,  450). 

North  Carolina. — Status  doubtful. 

New  York. — Before,  but  not  since  .January.  1002. 

Rhode  Island.— Status  doubtful. 

Virginia. — Not  valid. 

Washington. — Not  valid. 

West  Virginia. — Not  valid,  but  see  Sarinda  Davis  (widow)  (15 
P.  D.,  447). 

CONDUCT. 

See  Estoppel:  No.  :\  (14  P.  D..  409). 

CONNECTICUT  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  Subtitle  Connecticut  (14  P.  D.,  .3.55:  15  P.  D.,  290). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  1 5  P.  D. 

CONSANGUINITY. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (bb)    (10  P.  D..  889). 

CONSCRIPTION. 

See  Disloyalty  :   Nos.  5,  0  (11  P.  D.,  252;   12  P.  D..  45). 

CONFEDERATE  SERVICE. 

See  Disloyalty  :  Nos.  1,  2,  .3,  4,  5.  0,  7,  8,  9, 10,  11  (9  P.  D.,  140,  279,  294. 
800;  10  P.  D.,  72,  80,  125.  210;  11  P.  D..  04.  124.  1.30,  2.52,  290,  .327; 
12  P.  D..  12,  45 ;  13  P.  D.,  128,  248,  2.59,  .349,  895 ;  14  P.  D.,  104,  422 ; 
15  P.  D..  70,  809,  887). 

CONSTRUED. 

See  Construction  OF  Statutes. 

CONTINUANCE. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  18  (18  P.  D.,  .313). 


CONSOLIDATION  OF  CLAIMS. 

See  Fee:  No.  10  (10  P.  D.,  140). 


156  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

CONTRIBUTIONS.  ' 

See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  4  (12  P.  L).,  181;  14  P.  D.,  271). 

CONSTRUCTION  OF  STATUTES. 

See  Bounty  Land  :  No.  3  (15  P.  D..  561). 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  0  (10  P.  D.,  90). 

See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  8  (12  P.  D..  401). 

See  Dependent  Widows:  Nos.  8,  5  (18  P.  D..  81  :  10  P.  D.,  28;  15  P. 

D.,  324). 
See  Disloyalty  :  No.  9  (18  P.  D.,  249,  259). 
See  Division  of  Pension:  Nos.  1,  18  (12' P.  D.,  108;  14  P.  D.,  .8.88; 

15  P.  D.,  82,  221,  382). 
See  Minors:  No.  1   (11  P.  D.,  448). 
See  Rank:  No.  2  (11  P.  D.,  34). 
See  Restoration  :  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  381). 
See  Special  Act  :  No.  2  (18  P.  D.,  95). 
Index. 

1.  Act  of  March  8.  1899. 

2.  Si>ec'ial  net. 

1.  Act  of  March  3,  1899. 

Construction — Act  March  3,  1899 — Deserted  wife — Retroactive 
laws.  (Mary  Ann  Rothery  o.  Henry  N.  Rothery,  11  P.  D.,  77.) 
The  act  of  March  8,  1899,  is  prospective,  not  retroactive,  in  its 
operation,  and  the  desertion  named  therein  refers  only  to  such  as 
occurs  subsequent  to  the  passage  of  the  act.  The  word  "  deser- 
tion "  in  said  act  is  used  in  its  general  legal  sense,  and  means  the 
willful  withdrawal  of  one  of  the  married  parties  from  the  other 
or  the  voluntary  refusal  of  one  of  the  married  parties  to  renew  a 
suspended  cohabitation,  without  legal  justification. 

Construction — Act  March  3,  1899 — Retroactive  laws — Deserted 
wife.     (Catharine  Richards  v.  James  J.  Richards,  11  P.  D.,  90.) 

1.  To  entitle  the  deserted  wife  of  an  invalid  pensioner  to 
receive  one-half  the  pension  of  her  husband  under  the  provisions 
of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  it  must  appear  that  she  has  been 
deserted  by  said  pensioner  for  a  period  of  over  six  months  subse- 
quent to  the  date  of  the  passage  of  said  act,  said  act  being  wholly 
prospective  and  not  retroactive  in  its  operation  and  character. 
(See  case  of  Mary  Ann  Rothery  v.  Henry  N.  Rothery,  Company 
D,  Fifth  U.  S.  Artillery,  certificate  No.  309464,  decided  Septem- 
ber 5,  1900,  and  to  be  published  in  vol.  11,  P.  D.) 

2.  The  application  of  Catharine  Richards  under  the  act  of 
March  3,  1899,  for  one-half  the  pension  of  this  appellant,  James 
J.  Richards,  having  been  filed  in  the  Pension  Bureau  on 
April  15,  1899,  less  than  six  months  from  the  date  of  the  passage 
of  said  act,  was  premature,  ineffective,  and  void,  no  legal  rights 
whatever  having  accrued  to  her  on  said  date  under  the  provisions 
of  said  act. 


i 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  157 

2.  Special  Act. 

Con^struction — Special  act — Arrears — Rating.  (Alonzo  B.  Chat- 
field,  10  P.  D.,  99.) 

A  special  act  approved  June  8,  1898,  entitled  "An  act  to  con- 
strue an  act  approved  June  3,  1884/'  rerating  and  including  the 
disability  of  claimant  "  with  that  of  a  class  of  pensioners  who  have 
lost  an  arm  at  or  above  the  elbow ;  "  and  providing  that  said  act 
of  June  3,  1884,  "  be  construed  to  be  continuous  in  its  provisions," 
and  that  "  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  is  hereby  instructed  to 
reenter  and  continue  the  name  of  said  pensioner  on  the  roll  with 
the  class  of  pensioners  mentioned  in  said  act,  at  the  rate  of  pen- 
sion provided  for  said  class,  from  and  after  the  passage  of  this 
act,"  is  not  retroactive  in  its  effect  and  does  not  authorize  an 
increase  of  pension  prior  to  the  approval  of  said  act,  nor  does  it 
authorize  a  rerating  or  the  granting  of  arrears  of  pension. 

CONTRACT. 

See  Dependent  Widow  :  No.  1  (15  P.  D.,  257). 
See  Marriage:  No.  2  (p)   (12  P.  D.,  382). 

CONTRACT  SURGEON. 

See  Service:  Nos.  7,  20  (10  P.  D.,  133;  14  P.  D.,  515). 

COOPERATION  WITH  THE  NAVY. 

See  Service:  No.  11(10  P.  D.,  401). 

CREDIBILITY. 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  No,  18  (15  P.  D.,  123). 

CRUELTY. 

See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  4  (14  P.  D.,  394)  ;  No.  13  (15  P.     •  . 
450). 

CONTRIBUTORY  NEGLIGENCE. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  303). 

1.  Death  Cause. 

Contributory  negligence — Death  cause.  (Winnifred  J.  Cook, 
widow,  9  P.  D.,  12.) 

A  person  disabled  by  deafness  who  adopts  a  railroad  track  as 
a  highway  of  travel  is  required  to  exercise  that  care  and  caution 

,  which  ordinary  prudence  would  dictate  to  a  person  in  his  condi- 
tion in  order  to  avoid  harm  or  peril,  and  a  failure  to  do  so  is 
contributory  negligence;  and  where  a  soldier  is  killed  by  a  pass- 
ing train  while  pursuing  such  course  his  widow  is  not  pensionable 
under  the  general  law. 


158  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Negligence — Death  cause.  (Sarah  H.  Monty,  widow,  10  P.  D.,  101.) 
Soldier,  an  epileptic  and  a  carpenter,  went  upon  the  roof  of  a 
building  without  any  other  motive  than  a  desire  to  pursue  his 
usual  avocation,  was  seized  by  an  epileptic  fit,  fell  to  the  ground, 
and  was  killed  by  the  fall.  He  was  well  aware  of  his  epileptic 
condition,  having  been  subject  to  seizures  once  or  twice  a  week 
for  some  time  previous. 

Held:  If  the  death  of  a  soldier  is  shown  to  be  due  to  his  own 
negligence,  the  fact  that  a  pensioned  cause  was  present  as  a  factor 
in  said  death  is  subservient  to  the  greater  and  proximate  factor 
of  the  negligence  of  soldier.  Negligence,  and  not  epilepsy,  was 
the  proximate  cause  of  death.  (Balto.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i\  James,  95 
U.  S.,  439;  La.  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  r.  Tweed,  7  Wall.,  52;  Mil.  Rwy. 
Co.  V.  Kellogg,  94  U.  S.,  474;  Margaret  Moran,  9  P.  D.,  492.) 


DEAFNESS. 


See  Rate  and  Rating:  Nos.  5,  8   (9  P.  D.,  320;  12  P.  D.,  294:  15 
P.  D.,  207). 


DEATH. 


See  Legitimacy:  No.  5  (12  P.  D.,  102). 

See  Line  of  Duty:  Nos.  14,  19  (14  P.  D..  213;  15  P.  D.,  315). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (1)  (13  P.  D.,  333). 

DEATH  OF  CLAIMANT. 

See  Attorneys  :  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  191 ;  13  P.  !>.,  413;  14  P.  1).,  83). 

DEATH  OF  CLIENT. 

See  Attorneys  :  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  191 ;  13  P.  D.,  413;  14  P.  D.,  83). 

DEATH  FROM  DRINKING  UNBOILED  WATER. 

See  Line  of  Duty  :  No.  19  (15  P.  D.,  315). 

DEATH  IN  SERVICE. 

See  Discharge:  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  311). 

DEATH  CAUSE. 

Keferences. 

See  Contributory^  Negligence:  No.  1  (9  P.  D..  12:  10  P.  D.,  101). 

See  Evidence:  No.  12  (11  P.  D.,  301). 

See  Line  of  Duty:  Nos.  2,  9,  19   (9  P.  D.,  400;  11  P.  D.,  103;  15 
P.  D.,  315). 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  Nos.  1,  10,  15,  21    (12  P.  D.,  425;   13 

P.  D.,  105,  112;  11  P.  D.,  480). 
Index. 

1.  Accident. 

2.  Combination  of  causes. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  159 

3.  Liue  of  duty. 

4.  Evidence — Lay  testimony. 
."».  Pathological  seciiience. 

<;.  Predisposing  cause. 

7.  Disease  of  heart — Rheumatism. 

8.  Gangrene — Ulcerations. 
0.  Insanity. 

10.  Murder, 

11.  Tuberculosis, 

12.  Catarrh  and  general  paralysis  of  the  insane. 

13.  Malaria. 

14.  Poison. 

15.  Typhoid  fever. 

1.  Accident. 

Death  cause.     (Margaret  Moran,  widow,  9  P.  D.,  492.) 

Soldier,  who  was  suffering  from  varicose  veins  of  left  leg,  of 
service  origin,  for  which  he  was  pensioned  third-grade  rate,  was 
thrown  from  a  wagon  in  which  he  was  riding,  striking  on  the 
back  part  of  his  head,  resulting  in  his  death  two  days  later. 

Held:  That  soldier's  varicose  veins  w^ere  not  the  immediate  or 
proximate  cause  of  the  injury  which  resulted  in  his  death,  and 
that  his  death  had  no  relation,  immediate  or  proximate,  with  his 
pensioned  cause  or  his  arniy  service. 

2.  Combination  of  Causes. 

Death  cause.     (Napoleon  B.  Trask,  9  P.  D.,  113.) 

The  rule  laid  down  in  decision  in  the  case  of  Mary  A.  Cox  (B 
P.  D.,  313),  that  "  Avhere  the  evidence,  lay  and  medical,  goes  to 
show  that  the  cause  for  which  pension  was  granted  to  soldier  was 
complicated  with  a  disease  which  was  the  immediate  cause  of  his 
death,  the  Department  will  sustain  the  widow's  claim,"  has  not 
been  amended,  qualified,  recalled,  or  annulled,  and  the  same  is 
reaffirmed. 

Death  cause.     (Angeline  Emmons,  widow,  9  P.  D.,  129.) 

Soldier  was  pensioned  for  disease  of  heart  and  died  of  abscess 
of  bowels,  as  show^i  by  the  records  of  death  of  the  city  of  Lowell, 
Mass.,  and  claimant's  declaration  filed  about  a  week  after  sol- 
dier's death. 

The  affidavit  of  one  physician  stating  that  disease  of  bowels 
would  not  have  terminated  fatally  had  it  not  been  for  the  disease 
of  heart  amounts  to  no  more  than  mere  conjecture,  and  is  not 
accepted  as  showing  that  death  resulted  from  the  pensioned 
cause. 

Death  cause — C omhination  of  causes.     (Sarah  J.  Smith,  widow,  9 
P.  D.,  266.) 

The  sailor  was  pensioned  for  disease  of  heart.     The  attending 


160  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

physician  certified  that  death  was  caused  by  "  pneumonia,  ex- 
haustion, and  purulent  infihration,''  after  an  iUness  of  three 
months'  duration.  The  widow's  claim  was  rejected  on  the 
ground  that  the  alleged  cause  of  death  was  not  due  to  the  dis- 
ability for  Avhich  the  sailor  Avas  pensioned. 

Held:  That  inasmuch  as  the  principal  desideratum  in  a  case  of 
lobar  pneumonia  is  the  maintenance  of  the  proper  action  of  the 
heart,  to  which  the  treatment  is  mainly  directed;  and  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  the  sailor  was  pensioned  for  disease  of  that  most 
important  viscus,  and  that  the  evidence  in  the  case  shows  that 
said  disease,  as  w^ell  as  pneumonia,  was  an  important  factor  in  the 
death  cause,  the  question  as  to  the  relation  of  the  acute  disease  of 
lungs  to  the  preexisting  chronic  disease  of  heart  is  one  of  com- 
plication, not  of  pathology,  the  claim  is  reopened  and  submitted 
for  read  judication  and  allowance. 

Death  cause.     (Nanna  J.  Smith,  widow,  9  P.  D.,  359.) 

The  word  "  complicated,"  as  used  in  the  case  of  Napoleon  B. 
Trask  (9  P.  D.,  113),  means  involved,  interwoven,  or  connected 
with,  and  to  entitle  a  widow  to  a  pension  under  section  4702, 
Revised  Statutes,  she  is  required  to  show  that  the  disease,  wound, 
or  injury  of  soldier  of  service  origin,  in  line  of  duty,  had  some 
probable  connection  with  or  relation  to  death  cause,  and  Avas  a 
contributing  and  presumptive  predominating  factor  in  produc- 
ing death. 

Death  cause — Misuse  of  a  dangerous  drug — Negligence.     (Karolin 
Ullm&n,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  303.) 

Death  from  the  accidental  misuse  of  a  dangerous  drug  pre- 
scribed for  a  disease  or  injury  of  service  origin  will  not  confer 
title  on  the  widow  of  the  deceased,  unless  it  be  clearly  shown  that 
said  disease  or  injury,  independent  of  the  mere  misuse  of  the 
drug,  was  a  direct  contributing  factor  in  the  death  cause,  or  that 
death  was  inevitable  and  was  merely  hastened  by  the  misuse  of 
the  drug. 

Death  cause — Chronic  diarrhea — Chyluria  parasitica.     (Jennie  L. 
eJackson,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  354.) 

The  soldier  was  pensioned  in  part  for  chronic  diarrhea,  of 
service  origin.  His  death  was  ascribed  to  chyluria  parasitica 
alone.  As  this  disease  of  itself  does  not  seriously  threaten  life, 
and  as  the  testimony  clearly  indicates  that  the  principal  disa- 
bility during  the  last  illness  was  due  to  chronic  diarrhea,  it  is 
held  that  the  soldier's  death  should  be  accepted  as  having  resulted 
from  chronic  diarrhea,  complicated  with  chyluria  parasitica,  and 
it  is  so  ordered. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  161 

3.  Line  of  Duty. 

Death  cause — Poisoniiig.   (Laura  Hall,  now  Gregg,  widow,  9  P.  D., 
439.) 

Soldier's  death  from  an  overdose  of  opium,  which  he  was  in 
the  habit  of  taking  as  a  remedy  for  diarrhea  contracted  in  the 
service,  but  w^iich  w^as  probably  accidental  and  not  intentional, 
could  not  be  considered  to  have  been  in  any  way  a  result  of  the 
disease  or  otherwise  connected  with  his  military  service. 

4.  Evidence — Lay  Testimony. 

Death  caxise — Evidence — Lay  testimony.     (Maria  Harms,  widow, 
10  P.  D.,  453.) 

Lay  testimony,  the  only  evidence  adduced  in  the  case  at  bar 
relative  to  the  alleged  origin  and  continuance  of  disease  of  kid- 
neys, is  utterly  inadequate  to  show  the  existence  at  any  time  of 
any  morbid  condition  of  said  organs,  especially  when  a  chemical 
analysis  and  microscopical  examination  of  the  soldier's  urine 
made  but  two  months  prior  to  his  death  showed  conclusively 
that  he  had  no  organic  disease  of  kidneys. 

6.  Pathological  Sequence. 

Death    cause — Pathological    sequence.     (Julia    A.    E.    Watkins, 
widow,"lOP.  D.,  202.) 

The  evidence  shows  the  fatal  disease  of  the  heart  to  have 
arisen  either  from  diarrhea,  malarial  poisoning  (pensioned 
causes),  or  rheumatism.  All  of  said  diseases  may  have  been 
an  important  factor  in  inducing  the  fatal  disease.  The  special 
examination  shows  rheumatism  to  have  been  of  service  origin. 
The  medical  referee  holds  that  fatal  disease  resulted  from 
rheumatism. 

Held:  1.  Death  was  the  result  of  diseases  contracted  in  the 
service  and  in  line  of  duty. 

2.  The  opinions  of  the  medical  referee  are  not  binding  upon  the 
Secretary,  but  are  expert  evidence,  and  will  be  treated  as  such 
by  the  Department. 
Death    cause — Pathological    sequence — Discharge — Act    June    27^ 
1890.     (Matilda  C.  Tunison,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  440.) 

The  deceased  officer  was  formerly  a  pensioner  at  total  of  rank 
as  major  ($25  per  month)  on  account  of  "  fracture  of  right 
elbow."  His  death  on  February  23,  1898,  according  to  the  return 
thereof  made  by  the  attending  physician,  was  due  to  "  amyo- 
trophic lateral  sclerosis  and  acute  pneumonitis." 
^  Pneumonitis   (pneumonia)   being  an  acute  disease — due  to  a 

specific  germ — could  not  have  been  a  result  of  his  military  serv- 

13070— 0( 


162  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

ice;  and  his  medical  attendant's  testimony  to  the  effect  that  the 
amyotrophic  lateral  sclerosis  was  a  pathologic  sequence  of  the 
fracture  of  right  elbow,  not  being  in  harmony  with  the  holding 
of  recognized  medical  authorities,  to  the  effect  that  the  etiology 
of  such  disease  is  as  yet  unknown,  the  arbitrary  and  unsupported 
professional  opinion  or  theory  of  this  affiant  can  not  be  permitted 
to  control  the  judgment  of  the  Department  in  this  case,  which 
is:  That  the  appellant  has  no  title  to  a  pension  under  the  general 
law  as  the  case  now  stands. 

The  decedent's  discharge  from  Company  G,  Twentieth  Illinois 
Infantry,  according  to  the  decision  of  the  War  Department, 
which  has  sole  jurisdiction  in  such  matters,  not  having  been 
an  honorable  discharge,  his  relict,  the  appellant,  has  no  title  to  a 
pension  under  the  provisions  of  section  3,  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Pathological  sequence — Cerebral  hemorrhage — Death  cause — Evi- 
dence.    (Maria  Brantigam,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  388.) 

Death  of  the  soldier  (who  was  over  50  years  of  age)  from 
cerebral  hemorrhage  can  not  be  accepted  as  due  to  injury  to  left 
testicle  and  varicose  veins  of  right  leg  and  resulting  amputation 
of  same  above  the  knee,  for  which  he  was  pensioned.  Senile 
degeneration  of  the  arteries  is  universally  admitted  as  the  most 
potent  cause  of  said  fatal  disease,  and  this  is  shown  to  have  ex- 
isted in  this  case,  so  that  the  burden  of  proof  rests  on  those 
advancing  a  contrary  opinion. 

Death  cause  —  Pathological  sequence  —  Meningitis.  (Rebecca  C. 
Morgan,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  220.) 

The  late  officer  was  pensioned  under  the  general  law  on  account 
of  a  gunshot  wound  which  destroyed  the  right  eye  and  fractured 
the  bones  of  the  orbit.  His  death  is  shown  to  have  been  due  to 
disease  of  the  brain  or  meningitis. 

Held:  That  in  the  absence  of  any  other  more  probable  cause 
for  infection  than  the  continued  disease  in  the  orbit,  the  fatal 
disease  was  caused  primarily  by  the  gunshot  wound.  Action 
reversed. 

Death  cause — Surgical  operation — Sequence.  (Elisabet  Kaufman, 
widow,  11  P.  D.,  106.) 

The  soldier's  death  is  shown  to  have  resulted  from  disease  of 
kidneys,  caused  by  ether  anaesthesia,  induced  for  the  purpose  of 
operating  on  a  diseased  right  testicle,  for  which  not  pensioned, 
and  for  the  radical  cure  of  a  right  inguinal  hernia  and  hydrooele, 
for  which  pensioned. 

H eld :.T\i2it  inasmuch  as  the  pensioned  disabilities  were  in- 
cluded in  the  operation  leading  tQ  the  soldier's  death,  the  widow 
is  entitled  to  pension. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  163 

Death  cause — Comhined  causes.  (Mary  E.  Dolan,  widow;  minor 
of  Harla  Dolan,  11  P.  D.,  62.) 

Soldier's  death  from  quick  consumption,  following  an  attack 
of  pneumonia,  can  not  be  accepted  as  due  to  chronic  diarrhea 
of  service  origin,  said  diarrhea  not  being  an  important  control- 
ling factor  in  nor  so  complicated  with  said  death  cause  that  its 
influence  can  not  be  separated  therefrom. 
Death  cause — Pathological  sequence — Apoplexy.  (Emily  O.  Dil- 
worth,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  459.) 

The  soldier's  death  at  the  age  of  72  years  of  cerebral  hemor- 
rhage can  not  be  properly  regarded  as  due  to  the  gunshot  wound 
through  the  neck  incurred  thirty-six  years  prior  thereto,  and  for 
which  he  was  pensioned. 

'■  6.  Predisposing  Cause. 

Death  cause — Predisposing  cause — Construction.  (Nancy  A. 
Stives,  widow,  10  P.  D.,  90.) 

1.  Where  the  evidence^  lay  and  medical,  goes  to  show  that  the 
cause  for  which  pension  was  granted  to  the  soldier  was  compli- 
cated with  a  disease  which  was  the  immediate  cause  of  his  death, 
the  Department  w^ll  sustain  the  widow's  claim. 

2.  The  pension  laws  should  be  construed  in  the  liberal  and 
generous  spirit  which  prompted  their  enactment,  and  where 
doubts  can  not  be  resolved  by  the  evidence,  presumption  should 
incline  toward  the  claimant. 

Death  cause — Predisposing  cause — Epilepsy.  (Laura  E.  Carrier, 
widow,  14  P.  D.,  300.) 

The  evidence  shows,  in  soldier's  temperament  and  constitu- 
tional tendencies,  a  predisposition  to  epilepsy  which  developed 
in  the  .service  as  the  result  of  an  attack  of  otitis  media  (suppura- 
tive) contracted  in  line  of  duty.  The  predisposition  is  not  a  bar 
to  pension;  and  the  widow  is  entitled  under  the  general  law,  it 
being  admitted  that  soldier's  death  cause  was  epilepsy. 

Mere  aggravation  in  service  of  a  preexisting  disease  is  not  pen- 
sionable; but  where  a  disease  develops  in  service,  starting  with 
some  injury  or  ailment  incident  to  line  of  duty  as  the  approxi- 
mate efficient  cause  thereof,  albeit  there  is  a  preexisting  tendency, 
a  natural  predisposition,  to  the  disease  thus  developing,  said 
predisposition  does  not  operate  as  a  bar  to  pension  if  claimant 
is  otherwise  entitled. 

7.  Disease  of  Heart — Rheumatism. 

Death  cause — Disease  of  heart — Evidence — Rheumatism.  (Mary 
D.  Ramsey,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  89.) 

A  physician  testified  that  he  had  a  clear  recollection  of  treat- 


164  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

ing  appellant  for  rheumatism  when  at  home  on  a  furlough  in 
1863.  One  neighbor  testified  it  was  his  understanding,  from 
what  the  family  said  when  soldier  was  home  on  furlough,  that 
he  had  camp  dysentery  for  one  thing,  and  rheumatism  for  an- 
other. Another  neighbor  testified  that  in  186B,  when  home  on 
furlough,  soldier  complained  of  rheumatism  and  walked  lame, 
and  another  swears  that  while  in  the  service  and  after  discharge 
he  frequently  heard  soldier  complain  of  rheumatism  in  his  legs 
and  body,  and  noticed  at  one  time  in  1863  that  he  was  quite  lame, 
and  after  discharge  he  was  still  apparently  suffering  and  disabled 
on  account  of  rheumatism. 

It  is  held  that  soldier's  death  from  disease  of  heart  can  be  ac- 
cepted as  due  to  rheumatism  contracted  in  the  service  and  line  of 
duty. 

8.  Gangrene — Ulcerations. 

Death  cause — Pathological  sequence — Gangrene — Ulcerations. 
(Emily  Juno,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  354.) 

The  soldier  was  pensioned  for  disease  of  the  left  leg,  which 
was  characterized  by  swelling,  eczematous  eruptions,  and,  at 
times,  ulceration.  He  died  from  gangrene  of  this  leg,  compli- 
cated by  disease  of  kidneys. 

It  is  held  that  the  pensioned  disability  can  not  be  ignored  as  a 
predisposing  cause  of  the  fatal  gangrene  of  the  left  leg.  What- 
ever may  have  been  the  exciting  cause,  the  fact  remains  that  this 
chronically  diseased  leg  became  gangrenous  and  caused  the  sol- 
dier's death. 

9.  Insanity. 

Death  cause — Insanity — Evidence.  (Elizabeth  Penman,  now  Ful- 
mer,  as  widow,  12  P.  D.,  459.) 

Claimant's  husband's  death  by  suicide,  by  reason  of  his  in- 
sanity first  appearing  after  his  enlistment,  is  deemed  to  have 
been  contracted  in  the  line  of  duty,  no  other  cause  for  his  mental 
derangement  appearing  from  the  evidence. 

10.  Murder. 

Death  cause — Murder — Act  June  27 .^  1890.  (Susan  Smith,  widow, 
12P.  D.,  180.) 

Soldier's  death  was  caused  by  claimant's  voluntary,  unlawful, 
and  felonious  act,  for  which  she  w^as  indicted,  tried,  and  con- 
victed of  murder,  and  was  sentenced  therefor  to  imprisonment 
for  life,  but  w^as  pardoned  after  serving  twelve  years.  She  is 
not,  therefore,  entitled  to  pension  under  the  third  section  of  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890,  on  account  of  the  death  of  her  husband 
caused  by  her  own  wrongful  and  unlawful  act. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  165 

11.  Tuberculosis. 

Death  cause — Pathological  sequence — Bacteriology — Tuberculosis, 
(Susan  Codner,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  342.) 

The  deceased  soldier  was  pensioned  at  the  rate  of  $12  per 
month  for  "  chronic  diarrhea  and  resulting  disease  of  rectum." 
He  died  November  12,  1897,  of  pulmonary  tuberculosis,  which, 
his  widow^  contends,  was  an  indirect  result. of  the  said  diseased 
condition  of  his  alimentary  canal. 

Held:  1.  That  inasmuch  as  the  evidence  in  favor  of  the  bac- 
terial origin  of  tuberculosis,  whether  local  or  general,  is  now 
regarded  as  conclusive,  it  is,  necessarily,  a  primary  disease,  and 
it  is,  therefore,  never  a  pathologic  sequel  of  any  other  disease, 
though  certain  constitutional  peculiarities,  and  some  local  con- 
ditions, especially  of  the  bronchii,  are  considered  by  medical 
authorities  to  be  favorable  to  the  invasion,  growth,  and  pro- 
liferation of  the  tubercle  bacillus. 

2.  That  the  evidence  in  the  case  does  not  establish  the  exist- 
ence at  any  time  of  tuberculosis  of  the  bow^els,  though  it  is  not 
improbable  that  such  conditions  did  exist  during  the  last  few 
years  of  the  soldier's  life  as  secondary  to  the  phthisis  pulmonalis, 
as  such  a  sequel  is  not  at  all  unusual. 

3.  That  the  said  cause  of  the  soldier's  death  not  having  been 
incident  in  any  way  to  his  military  service  his  widow  has  no  title 
to  a  pension  under  the  general  law. 

12.  Catarrh  and  General  Paralysis  of  the  Insane. 

Death  cause — Pathological  sequence — Catarrh  and  general  paraly- 
sis of  the  insane.     (Hannah  L.  Hawke,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  372.) 

The  cause  assigned  for  the  soldier's  death  on  January  14,  1900, 
w^as  "  cerebral  softening."  Sometime  prior  to  his  death  a  claim 
for  increase,  signed  by  mark,  was  filed  in  his  behalf  in  which  it 
w^as  alleged  that  he  w^as  suffering  from  "  progressive  softening 
of  the  brain,"  due  to  the  nasopharyngeal  catarrh  and  resulting 
deafness,  for  which  he  was  pensioned.  At  the  medical  examina- 
tion held  thereunder,  June  12,  1899,  it  developed  that  he  was 
suffering  from  the  condition  known  as  "  general  paralysis  of  the 
insane,"  also  termed  "  paralytic  dementia,"  "  paretic  dementia,'' 
"  general  paresis,"  "  progressive  paralysis  of  the  insane."  No 
deafness  was  found  to  exist;  neither  was  there  any  disease  of  the 
auditory  apparatus. 

His  widow  filed  a  claim  for  pension  under  the  general  law — 
based  on  the  alleged  ground  that  his  death  from  disease  of  brain 
was  due  to  his  military  service,  by  reason  of  such  death  cause 
being  a  result  of  said  pensioned  disabilities. 


166  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Both  of  these  claims  Avere  rejected,  but  in  neither  instance  was 
the  action  taken  error. 

Extensive  suppurative  conditions  of  the  nose  and  frontal  si- 
nuses, or  of  the  middle  ears  and  mastoid  cells,  especially  the  lat- 
ter, may  and  frequently  do  cause  abscess  of  the  brain,  the  symp- 
toms, course,  pathology,  and  termination  of  which  are  sufficiently 
distinct,  as  are  also  its  etiologic  factors,  from  those  of  paretic 
dementia  to  make  a  differential  diagnosis  between  such  cerebral 
lesions  comparatively  easy.  The  clinical  picture  presented  was 
one  of  paretic  dementia  and  not  of  brain  abscess.  No  deafness 
existed,  and  the  disease  of  brain  not  being  a  result  of  catarrh  he 
was  not  entitled  to  an  increase  in  rate;  and  the  cause  of  his 
death  not  having  been  incident  to  his  military  service  in  any 
manner  whatever,  his  widow  has  no  title  to  a  pension  under  the 
general  law. 

13.  Malaria. 

Death  cmtse  —  Incurrence  —  Continuance  —  Malaria.  (Margaret 
Christy,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  313.) 

The  appellant  is  pensioned  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  pursuant  to  a  claim  filed  thereunder  July  10, 
1890.  But  it  was  not  until  December  15,  1897,  that  she  filed  a 
claim  under  the  general  law  from  the  rejection  of  which,  on  Oc- 
tober 12,  1900,  her  appeal  in  the  premises  was  taken. 

It  is  fairly  well  established  that  the  soldier  contracted  malarial 
fever  in  the  service,  and  was  treated  therefor  by  the  regimental 
surgeon  in  the  summer  of  1864,  but  not  in  hospital.  It  is  also 
reasonably  well  established  that  his  death,  on  August  24,  1871, 
was  due  to  malarial  fever,  although,  in  the  judgment  of  the  De- 
partment, there  were  other  factors  which  were  at  least  contribut- 
ing or  complicating  causes  of  his  death;  but  such  possible  or 
probable  factors  in  the  causation  of  his  demise  are  eliminated 
from  further  consideration,  as  the  Bureau  appears  to  be  satisfied 
that  death  was  due  to  malaria. 

It  is  contended  that  the  malaria  of  service  origin  was  the  cause 
of  the  soldier's  death,  but  inasmuch  as  the  evidence  and  the  facts 
in  the  case  fail  to  show  the  existence  of  chronic  malaria  (malaria 
cachexia,  chronic  paludism)  during  the  time  intervening  between 
the  date  of  his  discharge  and  the  date  of  his  death,  such  con- 
tention is  untenable.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  shown  that  no 
such  condition  existed. 

It  is  just  as  true  that  all  cases  of  malarial  fever  do  not  become 
chronic  as  it  is  that  one  attack  of  such  disease  does  not  render 
the  person  attacked  immune  from  a  subsequent  attack ;  and  when 
it  is  considered  that  the  so-called  "  mosquito  theory  "  as  to  the 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  167 

propagation  of  malaria  is  accepted  as  a  demonstrated  fact,  a 
person  who  has  not  previously  had  the  disease  is  as  liable  to  be 
inoculated  therewith  as  is  one  who  had  suffered  from  a  prior 
infection. 

14.  Poison. 

Death  cause — Poison — Pathological  sequence — Evidence.     (Fanny 
G.  Pomeroy,  widow,  18  P.  D.,  342.) 

The  soldier's  death,  in  1899,  from  a  poisonous  dose  of  chloral, 
administered  by  himself,  was  not  incident  in  any  way  to  his 
military  service ;  consequently  his  widow  has  no  title  to  a  pen- 
sion under  the  general  law.  He  was  in  the  habit  of  taking  said 
drug  for  the  relief  of  insomnia  induced  by  disease  of  nervous 
system,  for  which  he  had  been  pensioned  under  the  act  of  June 
27,  1890,  but  not  under  the  general  law.  The  appellant  contends 
that  the  insomnia  was  really  caused  by  pain  due  to  hemorrhoids, 
for  which  he  had  formerly  been  pensioned  under  the  general 
law,  and  that  his  death  was,  therefore,  indirectly  due  to  his 
military  service.  It  is  immaterial,  however,  as  to  what  the 
actual  cause  of  the  insomnia  may  have  been,  or  whether  the  over- 
dose of  chloral  was  taken  by  mistake  or  with  suicidal  intent,  as 
he  was  not  insane  as  a  result  of  his  military  service,  but  was  sound 
in  mind  if  not  in  body.  Citing  mother  of  John  G,  Stack  (2 
P.  D.,  153)  ;  Ellen  Flynn,  widow  (8  P.  D.,  54)  ;  Jessie  M.  Whal- 
lan,  widow  (8  P.  D.,  131). 

15.  Typhoid  Fever. 

Death  cause — Typhoid  fever — Origin.     (Carrie  B.  Whiteleather, 
mother,  15  P.  D.,  58.) 

The  soldier  suffered  from  two  distinct  attacks  of  typhoid  fever, 
the  first  beginning  in  August,  1898,  while  he  was  in  the  military 
service,  and  the  last  (which  proved  fatal)  beginning  in  June, 
1900,  about  twenty  months  after  his  discharge.  It  is  held  that 
the  fatal  attack  of  typhoid  fever  was  due  to  a  new  infection  from 
without  and  not  to  self-infection  from  bacilli  possibly  remain- 
ing from  the  former  attack. 


DECREE. 


See  Decree  of  Nullity  :  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7  (10  P.  D.,  238,  284;  11 
P.  D.,  271 ;  13  P.  D.,  460 ;  14  P.  D.,  290 ;  15  P.  D.,  227,  286). 

See  Divorce:  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  9,  10  (10  P.  D.,  1,  311,  348;  11 
P.  D.  226,  406,  499 ;  12  P.  D.,  303,  445 ;  13  P.  D.,  68,  208,  236 ;  14 
P.  D.,  99,  173,  279,  438,  535 ;  15  P.  D.,  128,  174,  278,  389,  553). 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  No.  15  (14  P.  D.,  146). 

See  Marriage  :  No.  2(d)  (14  P.  D.,  265  ;  15  P.  D.,  103)  ;  No.  4  (10  P.  D,. 
409). 


168  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

DECREE  NISI. 

See  Divorce:  No.  6  (12  P.  D.,  445;  14  P.  D.,  438). 

DECREE  "A  MENSl  ET  THORO." 

See  Divorce:  No.  (>  (15  P.  D.  128). 

DECREE  OF  NULLITY. 

References. 

See  Dependent  Widow  :  No.  1  (15  P.  D.,  329). 
See  Marriage:  No.  15  (15  P.  D.,  503). 

Index. 

1.  Effective  only  from  its  date. 

2,  When  decree  of,  void. 

.3.  Essentials  of  a  valid  decree. 

4.  Where  the  Government  is  not  bound. 

5.  Where  decree  of,  held  valid. 

6.  Where  decree  held  retroactive. 

7.  Where  court  has  no  jurisdiction. 

8.  Faulty  complaint  invalidates  decree. 

1.  Eifective  Only  from  Its  Date. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Decree  of  nidlity.  (Sally  A.  Fuller,  al- 
leged widow,  10  P.  D.,  238.) 

Claimant,  at  the  time  she  married  the  soldier,  had  a  former 
husband  living,  from  whom  she  had  not  been  divorced.  Subse- 
quent to  the  death  of  her  second  husband,  the  soldier,  she  pro- 
cured a  decree  in  the  supreme  court  of  New  York  annulling  said 
first  marriage  on  the  ground  that  claimant  had  not  attained  the 
age  of  legal  consent  at  the  time  said  marriage  was  consummated. 

Held:  That  under  the  laws  of  New  York,  and  by  the  terms  of 
said  decree,  such  decree  became  effective  only  from  the  date 
thereof;  and  it  appearing  by  the  evidence  that  claimant  and  her 
first  husband  cohabited  as  husband  and  wife  after  she  had  arrived 
at  the  legal  age  of  consent,  she  was  his  legal  wife  at  the  time  she 
married  the  soldier  and  remained  such  up  to  the  date  of  the 
decree  of  nullity  before  mentioned,  and  therefore  was  never  the 
legal  wife  of  the  soldier,  and  is  not  his  lawful  widow. 

2.  When  Decree  of,  Void. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Decree  of  nullity.  (Mary  J.  Vaughn,  as 
widow,  10  P.  D.,  284.) 

Claimant  was  pensioned  up  to  January  4,  1870,  when  she  was 
remarried  to  one  Patton,  and  the  pension  was  then  continued  to 
the  minor  children  until  they  became  16  years  of  age.  In  1890 
she  applied  to  be  restored  to  the  rolls,  claiming  that  her  mar- 
riage to  Patton  w^as  void  because  at  the  time  he  had  a  former  wife 
living  from  whom  he  had  not  been  divorced,  and  to  sustain  said 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  169 

allegation  filed  a  decree  of  a  court,  in  an  ex  parte  proceeding, 
nullifying  said  marriage. 

Held:  That  as  the  Government  was  not  a  party  to  said  nullity 
proceedings,  and  as  it  is  shown  that  said  decree  was  procured  by 
fraud,  it  is  not  bound  by  said  decree;  and  as  the  other  evidence 
filed  to  show  the  invalidity  of  said  marriage  is  insufficient  to  show 
that  Patton  was  previously  married,  claimant's  marriage  to  him 
must  be  held  to  be  valid. 

3.  Essentials  of  a  Valid  Decree. 

Marriage — Divorce — Jurisdiction — Decree  of  validity,     (Mary  J. 
Yogler,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  271.) 

The  appellant  was  married  to  the  deceased  soldier  in  Hamilton 
County,  Ind.,  in  1880,  and  lived  with  him  as  his  wife  until  his 
death  in  1896.  She  was  previously  married  in  1869  to  one  Henry 
Curtner  in  Ohio.  In  1898  she  obtained  a  decree  in  the  circuit 
court  of  Hamilton  County,  Ind.,  annulling  and  vacating  her 
marriage  to  Curtner  on  the  ground  of  his  insanity,  and  declaring 
her  marriage  to  the  soldier  valid,  legal,  and  binding  under  the 
laws  of  Indiana. 

Held:  That  said  court  having  had  complete  jurisdiction  of  the 
subject-matter  and  the  parties,  its  judgment  and  decree  declaring 
said  marriage  to  the  soldier  legal  and  valid  under  the  laws  of 
Indiana  is  binding  and  conclusive,  and  establishes  the  legal 
status  of  the  appellant  in  that  State  as  the  lawful  wife  of  the 
soldier,  and  she  should  be  accepted  as  his  widow  for  pensionable 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  second  section 
of  the  act  of  August  7,  1882. 

4.  Where  the  Government  is  not  Bound. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Decree — Nullity — Fraud.     (Mary  Gembe, 
alleged  widow,  13  P.  D.,  460.) 

Claimant  married  Soldier  in  1859  and  lived  with  him  as  his 
wife  until  his  enlistment  in  1863,  but  never  lived  with  him  there- 
after. She  filed  a  suit  for  divorce  from  soldier  in  1865,  but  the 
same  was  never  further  prosecuted.  In  October,  1866,  che  sued 
out  a  warrant  against  one  Penebacker,  charging  him  with  bas- 
tardy and  being  the  father  of  her  male  child,  born  May  27,  1866. 
On  February  7,  1868,  soldier  was  granted  a  divorce  from  claim- 
ant on  the  proved  allegations  of  adultery,  personal  service  being 
had  on  claimant,  as  shown  by  the  record,  and  the  issue  being 
fully  tried.  Soldier  died  July  20,  1873,  leaving  a  second  w^ife, 
who  died  in  October,  1877,  and  one  child,  Lottie,  under  16  years 
of  age.  Claimant  filed  a  claim  for  pension  under  the  general 
law  as  widow  of  soldier  in  June,  1886,  which  was  rejected  in 


170  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

April,  1894.  In  December,  1895,  and  May,  1890,  John  A.,  sol- 
dier's son  by  claimant,  and  Lottie,  his  daughter  l)y  his  second 
wife,  filed  their  declaration  for  pension  under  the  general  law, 
which  was  allowed  June  17,  1897.  On  August  26,  1899,  the  de- 
cree of  divorce  theretofore  granted  was  set  aside  and  declared 
null  upon  the  ground  that  on  the  face  of  the  papers  the  court  had 
no  jurisdiction  in  the  matter,  and  on  the  further  ground  that 
fraud  had  been  perpetrated  by  soldier,  the  libelant;  the  decree 
further  stated  that  the  purpose  of  the  petition  was  to  aid  the 
petitioner  in  the  prosecution  of  a  pension  claim  against  the 
United  States  Government,  and  further  showing  while  the  lack 
of  jurisdictional  facts  did  not  necessarily  render  the  decree  void, 
yet  fraud  having  been  shown  the  decree  was  vacated. 

Held:  That  said  decree  of  divorce  having  been  the  cause  that 
led  to  the  payment  of  pension  to  claimant's  son  and  soldier's 
daughter,  and  the  Government  being  shown,  by  the  petitioner's 
allegations,  to  be  an  interested  party,  and  not  having  been  noti- 
fied of  the  nullity  proceedings,  the  Department  refuses  to  be 
bound  by  the  decree  of  nullity.  (Case  of  Frances  Monholland, 
7  P.  D.,  494.) 


Marriage  and  divorce — Decree  of  nnllity — Evidence.  (Hannah  A. 
Kumsey,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  290.) 

The  claimant  obtained  a  decree  of  nullity  out  of  a  court  of 
competent  jurisdiction,  the  effect  of  which  was  to  annid  the  sec- 
ond marriage  ab  initio  and  restore  her  to  her  status  as  the  widow 
of  the  soldier ;  and  there  is  an  utter  absence  of  any  fraud  on  the 
part  of  either  party  to  the  decree. 

Held:  This  Department  has  no  warrant  in  pension  claims,  and 
in  the  absence  of  fraud  against  the  Government  to  question  the 
soundness  of  the  judgment  of  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction 
as  to  a  question  of  fact,  said  judgment  being  a  part  of  the  evi- 
dence in  such  claim.  The  decree  of  nullity  in  this  case  is  ac- 
cepted as  conclusive  as  to  the  facts  and  law  therein  recited. 

6.  Where  Decree  Held  Retroactive. 

Decree  of  nullity  —  New  York  —  Marriage  —  Limitations  — Vested 
rights.     (Lydia  E.  O'Horo,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  227.) 

The  claimant  obtained  a  decree  of  nullity  out  of  the  supreme 
court  of  the  State  of  New  York,  being  a  court  of  competent  juris- 
diction, the  effect  of  which  was  to  annul  her  second  marriage 
and  restore  her  to  her  status  as  the  widow  of  the  soldier. 

Held :  The  limitation  in  the  decree  to  the  effect  that  the  second 
marriage  was  annulled  from  the  date  of  the  decree  does  not 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  "  171 

destroy  the  force  of  the  decree  itself  which  made  the  second  mar- 
riage void  ah  initio.  The  limitation  in  such  decree  was  evidently 
for  the  purpose  of  afl'ecting  the  vested  rights  of  innocent  third 
parties ;  but  the  Government  was  not  such  a  party,  and  said  lim- 
itation does  not  operate  to  make  the  second  marriage  a  valid  one 
at  any  time  nor  for  any  period. 

7.  Where  Court  Has  no  Jiirisdlction. 

Jurisdiction — Decree  of  nnllity — Marriage — O  Mo — Fraud — Reim- 
hnrsement.     (Malona  W.  Wiley,  as  widow,  15  P.  D.,  286.) 

The  court  record  in  this  case  shows  that  the  court  of  common 
pleas,  county  of  Wood,  State  of  Ohio,  had  no  jurisdiction  to  grant 
the  decree  of  nullity.  The  same  record  also  shows  that  the  pur- 
ported decree  of  nullity  was  obtained  by  fraud  for  the  purpose 
of  affecting  the  pensionable  rights  of  this  claimant. 

Held:  The  Department  will  not  be  bound  by  such  a  decree. 
(Mary  Gembe,  13  P.  D.,  4G0;  Melissa  Boyd,  14  P.  D.,  279.) 

8.  Faulty  Complaint  Invalidates  Decree. 

Marriage  —  Divorce — Wisco/isin — Jurisdiction  —  Nullity — Restora- 
tion— Residence.  (Celinda  Ritchie,  formerly  Dolan,  widow,  15 
P.  D.,  470.) 

In  Wisconsin  a  decree  of  nullity  rendered  upon  a  complaint 
which  fails  to  allege  one  year's  residence  in  the  State  next  pre- 
ceding the  commencement  of  the  action,  or  continuous  residence 
in  the  State  from  date  of  marriage  therein  to  date  of  commence- 
ment of  such  action,  and  which  alleges  cause  and  prays  for 
divorce  only,  is  erroneous,  invalid,  and  void,  and  no  effect  as 
evidence  of  the  invalidity  of  such  marriage. 

The  testimony  procured  on  special  examination  in  this  case 
shows  convincingly  that  this  claimant's  second  husband,  Ritchie, 
had  no  former  wife  living  and  undivorced  at  the  time  of  his  mar- 
riage to  her,  and  such  marriage  was  valid. 

DECLARATIONS. 

References. 

See  Attorneys:  No.  11   (9  P.  D.,  137;  11  P.  D.,  429,  490;  12  P.  D., 

221). 
See  Commencement:  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  102;  1,3  P.  D.,  .352,  398). 
See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  2  (10  P.  D.,  78;  11  P.  D.,  171,  247;  15 

P.  D.,  18,  100,  106,  194). 
See  Desertion:  No.  4  (g)   (15  P.  D.,  8). 
See  Division  of  Pension  :  No.  G  (12  P.  D.,  370). 
See  Insane  Person  :  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  109). 
See  Practice:  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  109;  15  P.  D.,  480). 
See  Service:  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  23). 


172  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

Index. 

1.  Amendments  to. 

2.  Act  of  June  27,  1890. 

3.  Act  of  July  4,  1864  (section  4714,  Revised  Statutes). 

4.  Execution  of. 

5.  Sufficient  averments  in. 
f>.  Filing  of. 

7.  Sufficient. 

8.  Minor's  declaration. 

9.  A  successor  can  not  amend. 

1.  Amendments  to. 

Declarations  binder  act  of  June  27^  1890.  (Instructions,  9  P.  D., 
93.) 

1.  Every  application  for  pension  under  the  second  section  of 
the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  should  state  that  the  same  is  made  under 
said  act,  the  dates  of  enlistment  and  discharge,  the  name  or 
nature  of  the  diseases,  wounds,  or  injuries  by  which  the  claimant 
is  disabled,  and  that  they  are  not  due  to  vicious  habits:  Pi'o- 
vided^  however^  That  the  omission  of  any  of  these  averments  shall 
not  invalidate  the  application  (the  intent  to  claim  pension  being 

•  manifest  and  the  declaration  being  executed  in  accordance  with 
law),  but  such  application  shaH  be  subject  to  amendment  by 
means  of  supplemental  affidavit  in  the  particulars  wherein  it  is 
defective;  said  supplemental  affidavit  or  affidavits  to  be  read  in 
connection  with  and  as  a  part  of  the  application  itself:  And 
provided  further^  That  a  declaration  in  the  terms  of  the  act  shall 
be  sufficient. 

2.  Should  the  paper  filed  fail  to  show  upon  its  face,  with  cer- 
tainty, that  it  is  intended  as  a  claim  for  the  benefits  of  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  the  claimant  may  make  it  certain  by  means  of  a 
supplemental  affidavit,  which  shall  be  read  in  connection  with 
and  as  a  part  of  the  original  application. 

3.  Should  the  medical  examination  disclose  the  existence  of  any 
disease,  wound,  or  injury  not  alleged  in  the  original  or  amenda- 
tory application,  which  is  a  factor  in  the  applicant's  inability  to 
earn  a  support  by  manual  labor,  the  claimant  shall  be  called 
upon  to  state,  under  oath,  the  time,  place,  and  circumstance, 
when,  where,  and  under  which  such  wound  or  injury  was  re- 
ceived or  disease  contracted,  and  whether  it  was  in  any  manner 
caused  by  vicious  habits. 

4.  Should  the  wound,  injury,  or  disease  not  specified  in  the 
original  or  amendatory  declaration,  but  discovered  on  medical 
examination,  be  shown  to  have  existed  at  the  time  when  the 
original  declaration  was  filed,  and  it  is  found  not  to  be  due  to 
vicious  habits,  it  shall  be  taken  into  account,  the  same  as  if  for- 
mally specified  in  the  original  application,  in  estimating  the 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  173 

degree  of  the  permanent  mental  or  physical  disability  to  which 
it  contributes. 

Should  it  be  found,  however,  not  to  have  existed  at  the  time 
when  the  original  application  was  filed,  but  from  a  subsequent 
date  prior  to  medical  examination,  the  degrees  of  the  disability 
of  the  applicant  being  below  the  maximum  rating,  pension  may 
be  increased  accordingly  from  the  date  when  such  wound  or 
injury  was  incurred  or  disease  contracted,  provided  the  degree  of 
disability  from  all  contributory  causes  is  thereby  enhanced  to  a 
supcient  extent  to  justify  a  higher  rating. 

Should  it  be  found  impossible  to  fix  the  exact  date  when  such 
wound  or  injury  was  received  or  disease  contracted,  the  higher 
rating  shall  commence  from  the  date  of  the  certificate  of  medical 
examination  showing  its  existence. 

5.  Vicious  habits. — A  liberal  and  reasonable  rule  in  regard  to 
the  proof  as  to  "  vicious  habits  "  was  laid  down  by  the  Depart- 
ment in  the  case  of  John  Martin  (7  P.  D.,  578),  and  the  same  is 
hereby  affirmed:  Provided,  however,  That  where  the  nature  of 
the  disease,  wound,  or  injury  is  such  as  to  show  that  it  is  not  due 
to  vicious  habits,  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  may,  in  his  dis- 
cretion, accept  the  sworn  statement  of  the  applicant  as  sufficient. 

6.  Original  pension  having  been  allowed,  any  subsequent  in- 
crease of  pension  must  be  based  on  the  fact  that  there  is  increased 
incapacitation  for  earning  a  support  by  manual  labor,  and  must 
be  adjudicated,  so  far  as  commencement  of  the  increased  rate  is 
concerned,  under  section  4698-|,  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United 
States. 

7.  All  former  rules  and  decisions  in  conflict  herewith  are 
hereby  set  aside. 

2.  Act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Declarations — Amendments.  (Minors  of  Levi  Robins,  9  P.  D.,  40.) 
A  declaration  containing  all  of  the  necessary  allegations  for 
minor's  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  except  it  fails 
to  state  that  it  was  filed  under  said  act,  an  amendatory  affidavit 
having  been  filed  in  which  it  is  stated  that  the  claim  was  intended 
to  be  filed  under  said  act,  is  a  valid  declaration. 
Declarations — Act  June  27, 1890.  (Judith  S.  Luckingbeal,  widow, 
9  P.  D.,  42.) 

A  declaration  for  widow's  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  alleging  all  the  essential  elements  of  title  except  the  date  of 
her  husband's  discharge  (or  duration  of  his  service),  and  that 
his  discharge  was  honorable,  but  stating  that  he  was  a  pensioner, 
and  giving  the  number  of  his  pension  certificate,  is  a  good  and 
sufficient  application  under  said  act. 


174  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Declarations  act  June  27^  1890 — Disability — Evidence.     (George 
Ellis,  deceased,  9  P.  D.,  223.) 

It  being  shown  that  the  deceased  soldier  was,  at  the  date  of 
filing  his  application  for  jDension  and  up  to  the  date  of  his  death, 
incapacitated  for  earning  a  support  by  manual  labor  in  a  pen- 
sionable degree,  under  the  provisions  of  section  2,  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  by  disabling  causes  not  alleged  by  him  in  his  application, 
but  shown  not  to  be  due  to  vicious  habits,  his  claim  should  be 
admitted  under  instructions  from  this  Department  of  July  28, 
1897  (9  P.  D.,  93). 

Declarations — Act  of  June  27^  1890.     (John  H.  Sharon,  deceased, 
9  P.  D.,  272.) 

As  declaration  is  substantially  in  the  terms  of  the  law,  and  the 
claimant  in  his  statement  to  the  examining  board  alleged  the  dis- 
abilities he  claimed  for,  said  claim  is  held  to  be  valid. 

Declarations — Act  June  ^7, 1890 — Amendments.     ( Simon  P.  Eaves, 
deceased,  10  P.  D.,  177.) 

1.  In  the  adjudication  of  this  claim  disability  from  insanity 
was  not  considered,  because  not  alleged,  although  shown  to  have 
existed  at  time  of  filing  declaration  and  continuously  afterwards. 
This  action  was  sustained  by  a  decision  of  February  5, 1897,  upon 
the  ground  that  it  was  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  practice. 
The  claimant  had  died  before  such  rejection  and  the  rendering 
of  said  decision  without  filing  supplemental  declaration. 

2.  In  the  "  instructions  "  relative  to  declarations  under  said 
act,  dated  July  28,  1897  (9  P.  D.,  93),  said  rules  of  practice  were 
abrogated  and  others  substituted,  which  permit  the  consideration 
of  all  disabilities  proved  to  exist,  whether  alleged  or  not,  in  de- 
termining title.  The  former  decision  is  accordingly  overruled, 
and  the  action  of  the  Bureau  is  set  aside  for  the  purpose  of  hav- 
ing claim  readjudicated  in  conformity  Avith  said  "  instructions." 

Declarations — Act  of  June  27^  1890 — Amendments.     (Tony  Hud- 
son, 10  P.  D.,  365.) 

When  a  claimant  for  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  in 
the  language  of  the  act  alleges  in  his  declaration  that  he  served 
ninety  days  or  more  in  the  military  or  naval  service  of  the  United 
States  during  the  late  war  of  the  rebellion,  and  was  honorably 
discharged;  that  he  is  suffering  from  a  mental  or  physical  dis- 
ability of  a  permanent  character,  not  the  result  of  his  own 
vicious  habits,  which  incapacitates  him  from  the  performance  of 
manual  labor  in  such  a  degree  as  to  render  him  unable  to  earn 
a  support,  it  is  such  compliance  with  all  requirements  of  the  law 
as  must  entitle  the  claim  to  consideration,  notwithstanding  the 
specific  cause  of  disability  is  not  named;  and  it  is,  therefore, 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS,  175 

hardly  necessary  that  the  widow  of  a  deceased  applicant  for  pen- 
sion under  the  second  section  of  said  act  should  file  an  anienda- 
'tory  affidavit  covering  the  disabilities  shown  upon  examination, 
unless  it  be  to  designate  their  duration. 

Declarations — Amendments — Allegations.     (Felix  Myers,  11  P.  D., 
315.) 

A  declaration  in  which  the  formal  parts  indicate  a  claim  under 
the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  but  which  contains  allegations  of  a  serv- 
ice not  in  the  war  of  the  rebellion  and  of  disability  contracted 
in  said  service  and  line  of  duty,  is  subject  to  amendment  and  ex- 
planation as  to  any  uncertainty  in  the  character  of  the  claim  or 
the  claimant's  intentions  relative  thereto. 

Declaration — Act  June  27^  1890 — Amendments.     (Harriet  Daniels, 
widow,  MP.  D.,  434.) 

A  declaration  which,  although  failing  to  allege  any  period  of 
service  or  the  correct  service  of  the  soldier  on  whose  account  it  is 
filed,  nevertheless  clearly  shows,  on  its  face,  that  it  is  intended  to 
claim  pension,  as  widow,  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  is  a 
valid  declaration,  subject  to  such  amendment  as  may  be  neces- 
sary to  adjudication. 

Act  of  July  4,  1864  (Section  4714,  Revised  Statutes). 

Declarations — Act  June  Jf^  186^  {section  Ji71Ji).     (Michael  Tierney, 
9P.D.,7.) 

An  unsworn  application  for  pension  filed  subsequent  to  July 
4,  1864,  is  fatally  defective  and  does  not  authorize  the  commence- 
ment of  pension  subsequently  allowed,  on  a  sufficient  declaration 
subsequently  filed,  to  date  from  the  filing  of  such  defective  dec- 
laration. 

Execution  of. 

Dsclarations — Execution.     (George  M.  Hofmann,  10  P.  D.,  268.) 
An  application  for  pension  executed  on  the  day  of  the  appli- 
cant's discharge  from  the  service  is  null  and  void. 

Declarations — Execution  of  papers — Alabama  statute.     (Seaborn 
Williams,  10  P.  D.,  292.) 

Within  the  contemplation  of  the  law,  in  the  State  of  Alabama, 
the  official  act  of  the  clerk  of  a  probate  judge  therein  is  the  offi- 
cial act  of  said  judge;  therefore,  a  declaration  for  pension  is 
made  before  said  judge  if  executed  in  the  presence  of  his  clerk 
only,  and  is  legally  executed  within  the  purview  of  section  4714, 
Revised  Statutes,  and  the  act  approved  July  1,  1890. 

Declarations — Jurisdiction — Execution.     (Samuel  Berry,  11  P.  D., 
210.) 

The  declaration  purports  to  have  been  made  on  August  10, 


176  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

1888,  before  the  deputy  clerk  of  the  circuit  court  of  Macoml) 
County,  Mich.,  but  the  evidence  shows  that  the  same  was  executed 
in  Grand  Traverse  County,  of  said  State. 
Held :  The  dechiration  is  invalid. 

5.  Sufficient  Averments  in. 

Declarations — Sufficient  averments.  (William  H.  Hagarty,  10  P. 
D.,  359.) 

A  declaration  for  pension  containing  the  necessary  averments 
of  facts  is  valid  although  it  may  have  been  executed  upon  the 
same  day  of  muster  out,  after  the  claimant  has  been  discharged 
and  is  entirely  severed,  in  fact  and  in  law,  from  the  service  and 
is  no  longer  subject  to  military  duty  or  discipline. 

Declarations — Practice — Act  June  27^  1890 — Disloyalty.  (Jane 
Cook,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  426.) 

Under  the  provisions  of  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  June 
27,  1890,  the  averment  in  the  declaration  of  the  organization  in 
which  the  deceased  soldier  served  is  unnecessary,  and  the  allega- 
tion when  made  must  be  considered  merely  for  the  guidance  and 
convenience  of  the  Bureau.  An  incorrect  allegation  as  to  the 
particular  service  is  not  fatal,  and  when  the  actual  service  is 
ascertained  the  claim,  if  rejected,  should  be  reopened  and  re- 
adjudicated. 

6.  Filing  of. 

Jurisdiction — Declaration — Filing  after  death.  (Asa  H.  Dilley, 
11  P.  D.,  257.) 

Soldier  executed  his  declaration  and  mailed  it  to  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Pensions,  but  died  six  days  prior  to  the  date  of  its 
receipt  at  the  Pension  Bureau. 

Held:  A  pension  claim  is  not  pending  until  the  date  of  the  fil- 
ing of  the  declaration,  for  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  attains 
no  jurisdiction  until  the  declaration  is  filed.  The  Commissioner 
of  Pensions  could  have  no  jurisdiction  over  a  dead  person,  and 
the  filing  of  said  declaration  was  of  no  force  or  effect. 

Jurisdiction — Declaration — Evidence — Filing.  ( Anthony  O'Gra- 
dy,  alias  John  Davis,  11  P.  D.,  420.) 

1.  A  declaration  for  pension  is  of  no  force  or  effect  whatever 
until  filed  in  the  Bureau  of  Pensions. 

2.  The  actual  mailing  of  a  declaration  for  pension,  addressed 
to  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions,  is  not  sufficient  proof  that  the 
same  was  ever  filed  in  the  Bureau  of  Pensions ;  neither  does  such 
mailing  raise  any  presumption  that  said  declaration  had  been 
filed  in  said  Bureau. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  l77 

Declarations — Discharge.     (Minors  of  John  Gillespie,  13  P.   D., 
280.) 

A  declaration  for  pension  executed  prior  to  discharge,  although 
filed  subsequently,  is  void  and  of  no  effect  as  the  foundation  of 
a  claim. 

7.  Sufficient. 

Declaration — Sufficiency — Amendments.     (Alphonso  W.  Ellis,  11 
P.  D.,  93.) 

A  declaration  in  a  pension  claim,  aside  from  its  formal  parts, 
is  not  invalid  if  it  substantially  sets  forth  the  facts  upon  which 
the  claim  is  based.  It  is  siifficiently  certain  if  it  can  be  made 
certain.  Because  it  is  subject  to  amendment  to  make  more  defi- 
nite and  certain,  it  is  not,  thereby,  invalid. 
Declarations  amendatory  and  supplementary — Sufficiency.  (Nich- 
olas Gill,  12  P.  D.,  54.) 

Claimant  in  his  first  declaration  alleged  that  while  in  the  serv- 
ice and  in  line  of  duty  he  incurred  "  injury  of  right  arm  while  on 
detail  duty  as  blacksmith." 

Held:  That  his  said  allegation  is  sufficient  to  include  any  dis- 
ability of  the  right  arm  incurred  in  service  and  in  line  of  duty, 
including  rheumatism. 

8.  Minor's  Declaration. 

Declaration — Act  June  ^7, 1890 — Minors — Commencement.     (Mar- 
tha Apgar,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  7.) 

The  title  of  minors  to  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
is  distinct  and  separate  from  that  of  the  widow,  although  sec- 
ondary to  the  same.  It  is  therefore  held  that  a  widow's  declara- 
tion, when  she  has  failed  to  prove  title,  will  not  be  considered 
as  the  declaration  of  the  minors,  and  the  minor's  claim  will  not 
be  adjudicated  until  an  application  in  his  or  her  own  right  has 
been  filed. 

9.  A  Successor  Can  Not  Amend. 

Amendments  —  Declarations  —  Practice.     (Charles    Johnson,    de- 
ceased, 15  P.  D.,  529.) 

The  practice  does  not  contemplate  amendments  by  a  successor 
to  pensionable  rights  with  respect  to  cause  of  disability  alleged 
in  invalid  claims  under  the  general  law,  for  the  reason  that  the 
filing  of  an  amendment  serves  no  purpose  under  the  practice. 

DEFAULT. 

See  Attorneys  :  No.  9  (9  P.  D.,  213,  375  ;  11  P.  D.,  25 ;  13  P.  D.,  444)  ; 
No.  ]0  (14  P.  D.,^273). 

13070— OG— 12 


178  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

DEFECTIVE  VISION. 

See  Increase:  No.  3  (12  P.  D.,  87,  92). 

DELAWARE  LAWS. 

SeeMAKRiAGE:  No.  2  (g)   (14  P.  D.,  527). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  14  P.  D. 
t 

DEMONSTRATION. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  14  (13  P.  D.,  307). 

DEPENDENT  PARENTS. 

References. 

See  Commencement  :  No.  6  (11  P.  D.,  18). 

See  Fee:  No.  14  (11  P.  D.,  514)  ;  No.  25  (10  P.  D.,  428). 

See  Legitimacy  :  No.  7  (14  P.  D.,  474). 
Index. 

L  Legality  of  slave  marriages. 

2.  Election  by,  under  what  law. 

3.  Not  entitled,  where  widow  survives. 

4.  As  to  income,  means  of  support,  etc. 

5.  Must  show  soldier's  death  to  be  result  of  service. 

6.  Remarriage  of  a  mother. 

7.  Present  dependence  under  new  law, 

8.  Father  not  entitled  while  mother  lives. 

9.  Readjudication,  when. 
10.  Adulterous  cohabitation. 

1.  Legality  of  Slave  Marriages. 

Dependent  relatives — Colored  persons — Emancipation — Section  s 
i70i,  Jf705,  Jf707,  and  Jt72S,  Revised  Statutes,  (Daniel  Bird, 
father,  10  P.  D.,  104.) 

Soldier  was  born  in  1843,  the  fruit  of  a  slave  marriage  consum- 
mated in  accordance  with  slave  customs  in  Mississippi  in  1833, 
and  died  January  14,  1896.  His  mother  died  in  Mississippi  in 
1863,  six  years  before  said  marriage  could  have  been  ratified 
under  the  constitution  of  that  State.  His  father  filed  a  claim 
June  2,  1897,  for  a  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  as 
dependent  father. 

Held:  1.  That  the  marital  relation  between  soldier's  father 
and  mother  was  null  and  void  in  law,  and  claimant  has  no  legal 
status  as  the  father  of  the  soldier. 

2.  Neither  section  4704  nor  4723,  Revised  Statutes,  affect,  in 
any  manner,  the  dependent  fathers'  claims. 

3.  The  emancipation  proclamation  did  not  become  operative 
except  when  enforced  by  the  armed  forces  of  the  United  States, 
nor  did  it  change  the  legal  status  of  persons  held  in  slavery. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  l79 

2.  Election  by,  Under  What  Law. 

Fee — Limitation — Dependent  parents — Act  June  27^  1890,  and  sec- 
tion 4707 J  Revised  Statutes.  (Kathryne  A.  Ratcliffe,  mother,  11 
P.  D.,  171.) 

1.  An  applicant  for  a  dependent  parent's  pension  may,  if  he  or 
she  so  elects,  make  and  prosecute  a  claim  under  the  provisions  of 
section  4707,  Revised  Statutes,  without  regard  to  the  provisions 
of  section  1  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

2.  So  much  of  the  decisions  in  the  case  of  Elizabeth  Darling 
(10  P.  D.,  244,  299)  as  denies  the  existence  of  such  a  right  subse- 
quent to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  is  overruled. 

Dependent  parenfs  claims — Section  4707,  Revised  Statutes — Fee — r 
War  with  Spain.     (Kathrina  Blitch,  mother,  11  P.  D.,  247.) 

1.  Where  a  dependent  parent's  claim  was  filed  and  prosecuted 
wholly  under  section  4707,  Revised  Statutes,  and  calls  were  made 
by  the  Bureau  of  Pensions  for  evidence  of  dependence  at  the  date 
of  the  soldier  son's  death,  and  the  proof  furnished  establishes 
dependence  at  date  of  soldier's  death,  and  the  provisions  of  sec- 
tion 1  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  have  in  no  manner  been  in- 
voked, it  is  error  to  issue  the  certificate,  upon  the  allowance  of  the 
claim,  under  section  4707,  Revised  Statutes,  as  amended  by  the 
first  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

2.  In  such  a  case  the  attorney  prosecuting  the  claim  should  be 
certified  such  fee  as  agreed  upon,  evidenced  by  properly  executed 
duplicate  fee  agreements  filed  in  the  claim,  not  exceeding  $25. 

Declaration — Act  June  27, 1890 — Election — Amendments.  (Susan 
L.  Bean,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  18.) 

In  a  claim  for  dependent  parent's  pension  filed  subsequently  to 
December  8,  1900,  the  date  of  the  decisions  of  the  Department  in 
the  case,  Kathryne  A.  Ratcliffe  (11  P.  D.,  171),  where,  in  the 
declaration  the  benefits  of  the  first  section  of  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  are  not  specially  invoked,  and  where  is  filed  the  claimant's 
election  to  have  the  claim  adjudicated  under  the  provisions  of  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890,  such  election  is  an  amendment  to  said 
declaration ;  and,  as  thus  amended,  the  declaration  constitutes  an 
application  for  a  dependent  parent's  pension  under  said  act  only. 
Declarations  —  Amendment  —  Act  of  June  27,  1890  —  Election. 
(Mary  A.  Jackson,  mother,  claimant;  W.  W.  Dudley  &  Co., 
attorneys,  15  P.  D.,  100.) 

In  a  claim  for  a  dependent  parent's  pension  that  was  pending 
in  the  Bureau  on  December  8,  1900,  the  date  of  the  decision  in 
the  case  of  Kathryne  A.  Ratcliffe  (11  P.  D.,  171),  in  which  the 
claimant's  right  to  pension  under  the  provisions  of  section  4707, 


180  pension'  and  bounty-land  claims. 

lievised  Statutes,  was  not  then  established,  where  in  the  declara- 
tion the  benefits  of  section  1  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  are  not 
specially  invoked,  and  where  subsequently  is  filed  the  claimant's 
election  to  have  the  claim  adjudicated  under  the  i:)rovisions  of  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890,  such  election  is  an  amendment  to  said  dec- 
laration, and,  as  thus  amended,  the  declaration  constitutes  an 
application  for  a  dependent  parent's  pension  under  said  act  only. 
Declaration — Amendment — Act  of  June  27,  1890 — Section,  1^7 0'7, 
Revised  Statutes  - —  Election  —  Practice.  (Elizabeth  Robb, 
mother,  15  P.  D.,  106.) 

In  a  claim  for  dependent  parent's  pension  filed  since  December 
8,  1900,  the  date  of  decision  of  the  Department  in  case  of  Kath- 
ryne  A.  Ratcliffe  (11  P.  D.,  171),  where  in  the  declaration  it  is 
alleged  that  claimant  "  fully  understands  the  difference  between 
the  general  law  and  the  act  of  June  27, 1890,  and  the  fees  allowed 
under  each  law,  and  elects  to  make  her  application  under  the 
general  law,  section  1707,  Revised  Statutes,"  it  is  not  error  on  the 
part  of  the  Bureau  before  calling  for  evidence  to  advise  claimant 
of  his  or  her  rights  under  both  laws  and  request  him  or  her  to 
elect  under  which  law  he  or  she  desires  adjudication  of  claim, 
and  to  adjudicate  said  claim  accordingly. 
Dependent  parents — Act  June  27,  1890 — Section  1^707,  Revised 
Statutes — Limitation — Election.  (Nancy  J.  Anibal,  mother,  15 
P.  D.,  194.) 

In  claims  for  dependent  parents'  pension  that  were  pending 
in  the  Bureau  on  December  8,  1900,  the  date  of  the  decision  in 
the  case  of  Kathryne  Ratcliffe  (11  P.  D.,  171),  at  which  time  or 
thereafter,  and  before  there  is  filed  the  claimant's  election  to  re- 
ceive pension  under  the  provisions  of  section  1  of  the  act  of  June 
27,  1890  (the  benefits  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  not  having  been 
invoked  in  the  declaration),  there  has  been  adduced  evidence 
which  tends  to  show  that  the  claimant  was  dependent  for  support 
upon  the  soldier  at  the  time  of  his  death,  the  fact  alone  that  the 
claimant  elected  to  receive  pension  under  section  1  of  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  is  not  sufficient  reason  for  refusing  to  allow  pen- 
sion in  the  claim  under  section  4707,  Revised  Statutes  of  the 
United  States;  the  further  reason  for  refusing  to  allow  such 
pension  should  be  assigned  that  said  evidence  is  insufficient  to 
show  that  the  claimant  was  dependent  for  support  upon  the  sol- 
dier at  the  time  of  his  death. 

As  the  evidence  which  had  been  adduced  in  this  case  when  the 
claimant's  election  to  receive  pension  under  section  1  of  the  act 
of  June  27,  1890,  was  filed  fails  to  show  that  the  claimant  was 
dependent  for  support  upon  the  soldier  at  the  time  of  his  death. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  181 

the  action  of  the  Bureau  in  refusing  to  readjudicate  the  claim 
and  allow  pension  under  section  4707,  Revised  Statutes  of  the 
United  States,  was,  therefore,  proper. 
Practice — Declaration.     (Eliza  R.  Mong,  mother,  10  P.  D.,  78.) 

It  is  held  that  the  Bureau  erred  in  treating  a  declaration  which 
did  not  specify  under  what  law  it  was  filed  as  a  declaration 
under  the  general  law  without  explaining  to  the  claimant  the 
benefit  of  applying  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  and  giving 
her  an  opportunity  to  intelligently  amend  her  declaration. 

3.  Not  Entitled,  Where  Widow  Survives. 

Marriage — Adulterous  cohabitation.     (Eliza  A.   Daniels,  mother, 
lOP.  D.,  153.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  the  soldier  left  surviving  him  a  widow 
and  minor  children.  His  mother,  therefore,  has  no  pensionable 
status,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  widow  was  denied  a 
pension  on  the  ground  of  her  adulterous  cohabitation. 

Dependent  parents — Section  1^707.^  Revised  Statutes^  and  act  of 
June  27, 1890.     ^Amy  Champlin,  mother,  12  P.  D.,  24.) 

A  dependent  parent  is  not  entitled  to  pension  under  either  sec- 
tion 4707,  Revised  Statutes,  or  section  1  of  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  if  the  soldier  on  whose  account  pension  is  claimed  left  a 
widow. 

4.  As  to  Income,  Means  of  Support,  etc. 

Dependent  relatives — Means  of  support — Evidence.     (Hiram  Col- 
lins, father,  12  P.  D.,  361.) 

The  evidence  showing  that  the  applicant  is  adequately  sup- 
ported from  the  proceeds  of  his  farm  and  the  contributions  of 
those  legally  bound  to  support  him,  he  is  not  dependent  within 
the  meaning  of  section  1  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Dependence — Laws  of  Michigan — Hushand  and  wife.     (Thomas 
Garner,  father,  11  P.  D.,  297.) 

The  appellant  obtains  a  comfortable  support  from  a  farm  on 
which  he  resides  with  his  wife  and  son,  the  title  to  said  farm 
being  in  the  wife. 

Held:  While  section  6295,  Statutes  of  Michigan,  allows  the 
wife  to  hold  and  convey  property  free  from  interference  and 
joinder  by  her  husband,  yet  the  said  statutes  do  not  deprive  the 
husband  of  the  enjoyment  and  use  of  the  wife's  real  estate,  a 
right  belonging  to  him  under  the  common  law. 

Dependent  parents — Evidence — Income.    (Margaret  Burke,  mother, 
12  P.  D.,  129.) 


182  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

A  mother  claimant  who  occupies  her  own  house  and  has  an 
income  of  $20  per  month  from  rents  and  receives  over  $500  ])er 
year,  the  earnings  of  her  husband,  is  not  dependent  within  the 
meaning  of  section  4707  of  the  Revised  Statutes. 

Dependent  parents — Means  of  support.  (Elizabeth  Cove,  mother, 
12  P.  D.,  472.) 

The  evidence  fairly  shows  the  claimant  had  adequate  means  of 
support  aside  from  her  own  labor  and  the  contributions  of  per- 
sons not  legally  bound  for  her  support  at  the  date  of  filing  her 
claim,  she  having  at  that  date  property  worth  $5,000,  mortgaged 
for  $2,100,  and  which  appears  to  have  been  fairly  rentable  for  at 
least  $30  a  month  over  and  above  interest  and  taxes,  besides  fur- 
nishing her  a  house  in  which  she  lived  and  kept  two  boarders, 
sons,  who  paid  her  about  $55  a  month. 

Held^  as  a  general  rule:  That  a  parent  should  be  chargeable 
with  such  productive  use  of  his, or  her  property  as  it  may  reason- 
ably and  fairly  be  capable  of  as  a  means  of  support. 

Dependent  parents — Means  of  support — Evidence.  (Margaret 
Kuhn,  mother,  13  P.  D.,  241.) 

An  alleged  dependent  mother  is  without  present  means  of  sup- 
port, if  such  means  of  support  consist  only  of  the  legal  and  moral 
obligations  of  her  husband,  such  obligations  being  conclusively 
shown  to  be  productive  of  practically  nothing  toward  her  sup- 
port, and  the  law  being  powerless  to  make  them  productive ;  pro- 
vided always,  that  the  said  husband  has  no  property  which  can 
be  made  liable  for  such  support. 

Dependent  parents — Section  Ji.707^  Revised  Statutes.,  and  act  June 
27,  1890.     (Ellen  McKenney,  mother,  13  P.  D.,  432.) 

Claimant,  who  is  the  owner  of  ground  rent  leasehold  interests  in 
the  city  of  Baltimore,  Md.,  the  market  value  of  which  is  admitted 
to  be  $2,693,  is  not  dependent  w^ithin  the  meaning  of  section  4707, 
Revised  Statutes,  as  amended  by  the  first  section  of  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  or  under  any  existing  law^  relative  to  dependent 
parents. 
Dependent  relatives — Slave  mothers.  (Harriet  Gray,  mother,  12 
P.  D.,  131.) 

Claimant  and  her  minor  son  were  slaves  when  said  son  aban- 
doned his  master  and  mother  in  1863,  and  enlisted  two  years 
thereafter,  never  having  in  any  manner  contributed  to  his 
said  mother's  support. 

Held:  That  as  claimant's  said  son,  the  soldier,  never  con- 
tributed to  her  support,  and  was  not  legally  bound  so  to  do,  she 
was  not  dependent  upon  him  for  support  at  the  date  of  his 
death,  and  not  pensionable  as  a  dependent  mother. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  183 

Dependent  parents — A  handonment — Contribu tions.     ( William  Con- 
nell,  MP.  D.,271.) 

Claimant,  a  criminal  and  crook,  served  in  some  prison  from 
the  time  his  son  was  4  months  old  until  his  death;  never  saw 
or  heard  of  him  but  once  during  that  period;  never  contributed 
to  his  support,  nor  did  said  son,  who  was  21  years  old  when  he 
died,  ever  acknowledge  his  obligation  to,  nor  did  he  contribute 
to  his  father's  support.  He  can  not  therefore  be  held  to  have 
been  dependent  on  said  son,  whom  he  abandoned,  for  support 
within  the  meaning  of  the  pension  laws. 
Dependent  parents — Section  Jt707^  Revised  Statutes — Means  of  sup- 
port— Evidence.  (Cora  Gee,  now  Stolworth,  mother,  14  P.  D., 
267.) 

A  mother  who  has  a  healthy  husband  29  years  old,  w^ho  earns, 
w^hen  he  works,  from  $1.50  to  $2  per  day,  and  a  son  16  years  old, 
whose  earnings  she  is  entitled  to,  is  not  dependent  within  the 
meaning  of  section  4707  of  the  Revised  Statutes.  It  was  not  the 
intention  of  Congress  to  pension  the  mother  of  a  soldier  if  she 
has  an  able-bodied  husband  w^ho  lives  w^ith  her  and  is  shown  to 
be  able  to  support  her,  although  he  may  not  be  able  to  provide 
luxuries. 
Dependent  relatives — Illinois — Hushand  and  wife.  (Thomas  J. 
Dolan,  father,  14  P.  D.,  294.) 

By  statutory  enactment  the  State  of  Illinois  has  made  the 
separate  estate  of  husband  and  wife  liable  for  the  "  expenses  of 
the  family,"  whether  incurred  by  husband  or  wife.  Reflexively 
this  statute,  while  defining  a  creditor's  rights,  operates  to  give  to 
a  husband  such  an  interest  in  his  wife's  estate  that  the  extent, 
character,  and  value  of  her  said  estate  become  material  in  the 
determination  of  the  dependency  of  a  father. 

5.  Must  Show  Soldier's  Death  to  be  Result  of  Service. 

Presumption  of  death  evidence.     (Julia  Boyle,  mother,  9  P.  D., 
287.) 

The  continued  unexplained  absence  of  the  soldier  for  more  than 
twenty  years,  though  sufficient  to  raise  the  presumption  of  death, 
does  not  entitle  his  mother  to  pension,  as  it  must  be  further  shown 
that  such  soldier  died  of  a  wound  or  injury  received  or  disease 
contracted  in  the  United  States  service  and  in  line  of  duty. 

6.  Remarriage  of  a  Mother. 

Remarriage — Dependent  mother — Act  of  June  27^  1890.     (Eliza- 
beth Darling,  mother  of  Franklin  Rickard,  10  P.  D.,  244.) 

The  remarriage  of  a  dependent  mother  prior  to  the  act  of  June 
27,  1890,  is  not  a  bar  to  pension  under  section  4707,  as  amended 


184  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

by  the  first  section  of  said   act,  provided  the  facts  required  by  the 
first  section  of  the  act  are  duly  established.     (Mary  Kille,  7  P.  D., 
550.) 
Remarriage — Dependent  mother — Act  June   27^   1890.     (Rebecca 
Burton,  mother,  12  P.  D.,  509.) 

The  remarriage  of  a  dependent  mother  subsequent  to  the  pas- 
sage of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  and  prior  to  the  filing  of  her 
claim,  under  section  4707,  as  amended  by  said  act,  does  not  affect 
her  pensionable  status  if  she  is  shown  to  be  dependent  within  the 
meaning  of  the  law. 

7.  Present  Dependence  under  New  Law. 

Rate — Rank — Dependent-  parents — Act  June  ^7,  1890.  (Eliza- 
beth Darling,  mother,  10  P.  D.,  299.) 

Pensions  for  dependent  parents  are  rated  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  section  4707  of  the  Revised  Statutes  as  amended 
by  the  act  of  March  19, 1886,  the  first  section  of  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  only  amending  said  section  to  the  extent  of  requiring  claim- 
ants to  prove  present  dependence  instead  of  dependence  at  the 
date  of  the  son's  death. 

8.  Father  not  Entitled  While  Mother  Lives. 

Dependent  parents — Section  1^707  of  the  Revised  Statutes — Statu- 
tory construction.     (David  Dyer,  father,  12  P.  D.,  401.) 

A  dependent  father  has  no  pensionable  status,  under  section 
4707,  Revised  Statutes,  while  the  mother  of  the  soldier  is  living. 

9.  Readjndication,  When. 

Res  judicata — Limitation — Attorneys — Act  June  27^  1890 — Section 
1^707.,  Revised  Statutes — Practice.  (Lorenzo  L.  Sawyer,  father, 
15  P.  D.,  172.) 

Allien  pension  in  a  claim  of  a  dependent  parent  was  allowed 
prior  to  December  8,  1900,  the  date  of  the  decision  in  the  case  of 
Kathryne  A.  Ratcliffe  (11  P.  D.,  171),  in  accordance  with  the 
law  as  then  construed  by  the  Department,  and  with  the  practice 
then  in  vogue,  a  motion  to  readjudicate  the  claim  filed  by  an 
attorney  not  having  for  its  purpose  the  securement  of  a  benefit 
for  the  claimant,  w^ill  not  be  entertained. 

10.  Adulterous  Cohabitation. 

Dependent  relatives — Adtdterous  cohabitation.  (Isabelle  Davis, 
formerly  Henderson,  mother,  15  P.  D.,  335.) 

Open  and  notorious  adulterous  cohabitation,  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  act  of  August  7,  1882,  operates  as  a  forfeiture  of 
the  pension  of  a  soldier's  widow  only.  It  has  no  applicability  to 
the  claim  of  a  dependent  relative  only  in  so  far  as  such  conduct, 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  185 

during  the  lifetime  of  the  soldier,  extinguishes  the  moral  obliga- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  soldier  to  contribute  to  the  relative's  sup- 
port. Distinguishing  the  case  of  P^lizabeth  Van  Huff  (7  P.  D., 
474.) 

ANNOTATION. 
PRACTICE    IN    CLAIMS    FOR    DEPENDENT    PARENTS. 

Section  4707,  Revised  Statutes,  was  enacted  in  1802.  In  claims 
filed  thereunder,  the  testimony  required  was  as  follows:  First, 
that  soldier's  death  was  the  result  of  a  service  disability ;  second, 
his  relationship  to  the  claimant;  third,  the  celibacy  of  soldier; 
fourth,  that  the  soldier  contributed  to  the  claimant's  support 
during  the  last  two  years  of  his  life,  or  expressed  his  willingness 
so  to  do,  and  fifth,  that  claimant  was  dependent  the  year  the 
soldier  died  and  has  been  each  year  since,  down  to  the  year  of  the 
adjudication  of  the  claim.  In  case  the  pension  was  allowed,  it 
commenced  from  the  date  of  the  soldier's  death.  The  act  of 
March  3,  1879,  called  the  "  limitation  act,"  changed  the  date  of 
commencement  of  the  pension  to  the  date  of  filing  of  the  decla- 
ration in  all  cases  filed  since  June  30,  1880,  except  claims  of 
insane  claimants  or  children  under  16  years  of  age.  (The  term 
"  children  under  16  years  of  age  "  was  decided  in  the  case  of 
James  F.  Burkhead  (14  P.  D.,  24)  to  apply  only  to  children  of 
the  soldier  on  account  of  whose  services  and  death  pension  is 
claimed.) 

The  "  limitation  act "  also  changed  the  practice  as  to  depend- 
ence by  requiring  only  (in  all  claims  of  dependent  parents  filed 
after  July  1,  1880,  and  down  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890)  proof  of  dependence  the  year  the  soldier  died  and  since 
filing  the  declaration  in  the  claim. 

After  the  passage  of  the  act  of  June  27, 1890,  and  until  June  21, 
1899,  when  the  decision  in  the  case  of  Elizabeth  Darling  (10 
P.  D.,  244)  was  rendered,  the  practice  was  to  require  from  de- 
pendent parents  separate  and  distinct  declarations  either  under 
section  4707,  Revised  Statutes,  or  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
and  the  proof  required  under  each  law  was  as  follows:  Under 
the  general  law,  or  section  4707,  Revised  Statutes,  was,  first, 
proof  that  soldier's  death  was  the  result  of  his  service;  second, 
relationship;  third,  soldier's  celibacy;  fourth,  proof  that  soldier 
contributed  to  claimant's  support  or  expressed  his  willingness 
so  to  do  during  the  last  two  years  of  his  life;  fifth,  the  depend- 
ence of  the  claimant  for  support  upon  the  soldier  at  the  date  of 
his  death;  sixth,  proof  of  the  dependence  of  the  claimant  at  the 
date  of  and  since  filing  the  declaration. 

In  claims  filed  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  the  proof  re- 


186  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

quired  was  the  same  as  above  stated,  except  that  the  proof  re- 
quired above  in  Nos.  4  and  5  was  not  necessary. 

The  Darling  case,  decided  June  21,  189i),  again  changed  the 
practice  in  all  dependent  parents'  claims  filed  after  that  date,  in 
that  they  were  all  adjudicated  under  the  new  law,  i.  e.,  "  section 
4707,  as  amended  by  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,"  without  regard  to 
whether  the  declaration  was  one  under  the  old  law  or  the  new. 
This  practice  continued  until  the  decision  in  the  case  of  Kathryne 
Ratcliffe  (11  P.  D.,  171)  was  rendered,  December  8,  1900,  when 
the  practice  in  dependent  parents'  claims  was  again  changed 
back  to  what  it  had  been  between  June  27,  1890,  and  June  21, 
1899,  with  this  exception^  to  wit :  That  if  a  declaration  showed 
that  it  was  filed  under  section  4707,  Revised  Statutes,  or  old  law, 
the  examiner's  first  call  was  to  send  to  claimant  direct  an  election 
circular  explaining  the  difference  in  the  proof  required  under 
each  law,  the  old  and  the  new,  and  also  the  difference  in  the 
amount  of  fee  Avhich  would  be  allowed  the  attorney  under  each 
law,  and  requesting  the  claimant  to  elect  and  state  upon  the 
.  circular  which  law  he  or  she  desired  the  claim  to  be  adjudicated 
under,  and  to  sign  the  same  and  have  it  witnessed  by  two  wit- 
nesses and  returned  to  the  Bureau.  This  election  circular  upon 
its  return  to  the  Bureau  was  regarded  as  an  amendment  to  the 
original  declaration.  If  the  claimant  chose  the  old  law,  then  the 
examiner  was  to  adjudicate  the  claim  under  section  4707,  Revise<l 
Statutes,  alone.  If  the  claimant  in  her  or  his  election  circular 
chose  the  general  law  as  amended  by  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
then  the  claim  was  to  be  adjudicated  and  submitted  under  the 
new  law  and  an  attorney's  fee  of  only  $10  allowed,  although  the 
original  declaration  was  filed  under  the  old  law  and  the  attorney 
of  record  had  on  file  a  fee  agreement  for  the  payment  to  him  of  a 
fee  of  $25. 

Such  is  the  practice  now  with  all  claims  of  dependent  parents' 
filed  since  December  8,  1900. 

The  case  of  Nancy  J.  Anibal  (mother),  15  P.  D.,  194,  ren- 
dered September  30,  1904,  affects  only  such  claims  as  were  filed 
prior  to  December  8,  1900,  as  follows: 

In  claims  for  dependent  parents'  pension  that  w^ere  pending 
in  the  Bureau  on  December  8,  1900,  the  date  of  the  decision  in 
the  case  Kathryne  Ratcliffe  (11  P.  D.,  171),  at  w^hich  time  or 
thereafter,  and  before  there  is  filed  the  claimant's  election  to 
receive  pension  under  the  provisions  of  section  1  of  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890  (the  benefits  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  not  having 
been  invoked  in  the  declaration),  there  has  been  adduced  evi- 
dence which  tends  to  show  that  the  claimant  was  dependent  for 
support  upon  the  soldier  at  the  time  of  his  death,  the  fact  alone 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  187 

that  the  claimant  elected  to  receive  pension  under  section  1  of 
the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  is  not  sufficient  reason  for  refusing  to 
allow  i)ension  in  the  claim  under  section  4707,  Revised  Statutes 
of  the  United  States;  the  further  reason  for  refusing  to  allow 
such  pension  should  be  assigned  that  said  evidence  is  insufficient 
to  show  that  the  claimant  was  dependent  for  support  upon  the 
soldier  at  the  time  of  his  death. 

In  all  dependent  parents'  claims  filed  since  December  8,  1900, 
the  decision  in  the  case  of  Nancy  J.  Anibal  has  no  force  and  need 
not  be  regarded. 

In  adjudicating  depelident  parents'  claims,  whether  under  sec- 
tion 4707,  or  under  said  section  as  amended  by  the  act  of  June 
27,  1890,  a  difference  is  to  be  noted  between  a  dependent  mother's 
claim  and  a  dependent  father's  claim.  In  the  former  the  legiti- 
macy of  the  soldier  son  is  not  in  question.  In  the  latter  the  sol- 
dier son  must  have  been  a  legitimate  child.  In  the  former  the 
mother's  earnings  are  not  considered  in  forming  a  conclusion  as 
to  her  dependence,  while  the  mother's  husband's  earnings  are 
considered  (whether  he  be  the  soldier's  father  or  stepfather),  as 
well  as  his  financial  and  physical  ability  to  furnish  a  support  to 
the  mother,  unless  he  fails,  neglects,  or  refuses  to  contribute  to  his 
wife's  support  and  has  not  sufficient  property  which  can,  under 
the  law,  be  reached  by  the  mother  and  applied  to  her  support, 
in  which  case  his  physical  ability  to  earn  a  support  for  her  is  not 
considered.  In  a  father's  claim,  not  only  his  earnings,  but  his 
physical  ability  to  earn  a  support,  whether  he  does  so  or  not,  is  to 
be  considered. 

It  is  proper  to  add  that  wdiere  a  mother  applies  for  pension 
and  elects  the  general  law  alone  and  is  pensioned  thereunder,  and 
the  father  of  the  soldier  after  the  death  of  the  soldier's  mother 
applies  for  pension  and  elects  the  general  law  also,  he  will  be  re- 
quired to  prove  that  he  was  in  a  dependent  condition  at  the  date 
of  soldier's  death,  and  that  the  soldier  contributed  to  his  support, 
or  acknowledged  his  obligation  so  to  do  during  the  last  two  years 
of  his  life,  notwithstanding  any  evidence  on  file  in  the  mother's 
claim  showing  her  dependence  upon  the  soldier  at  the  date  of  his 
death  or  his  contributions  to  her  support. 

DEPENDENCE. 

See  Dependent  Parents  :  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  297 ;  12  P.  D.,  129,  131,  301, 

472;  13  P.  D.,  241,  432;  14  P.  D.,  267,  271). 
See  Dependent  Widow  :  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5  (9  P.  D.,  318,  502 ;  10  P.  D., 

9,  28,  67,  320 ;  13  P.  D.,  12.5 ;  15  P.  D.,  257,  329 ;  12  P.  D.,  40,  206 ; 

13  P.  D..  31.  448:  14  P.  D.,  80,  281,  360;  15  P.  D.,  127,  203,  324). 
See  Dependent  Brothers  and  Sisters:  No.  1  (14  P.  D.,  4). 
See  Increase:  No.  2  (10  P.  D.,  64). 
See  Insane  Persons  :  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  270).     • 


188  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

DEPENDENT  WIDOW. 

Index. 

1.  Dependence  under  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

2.  Insane  widow — Charity  not  dependence. 

3.  Act  of  May  9,  1900,  not  retroactive. 

4.  Act  ]May  9,  1900,  dependence  under. 

5.  Dependency,  Mexican  war  widow. 

1.  Dependence  under  Act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Dependence — Act  of  June  27^  1890.     (Isabelle  Varco,  widow,  9  P. 
D.,1.) 

In  considering  a  widow's  claim  linger  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
it  is  her  condition,  dependent  or  nondependent,  that  governs,  and 
it  matters  not  whether  the  property  or  income  that  keeps  her 
from  dependence  is  derived  from  her  husband's  estate.  It  is 
the  widow's  pecuniary  condition,  as  a  fact,  that  is  the  criterion 
under  said  act. 
Dependence— Act  June  27, 1890.     (Isabelle  Varco,  9  P.  D.,  320.) 

As  the  evidence  in  this  case  fails  to  show  the  value  of  claimant's 
means  of  support,  the  motion  is  sustained,  and  departmental 
decision  of  March  IB,  1897,  reversed  and  a  special  examination 
ordered. 
Dependence — Act  June  27.,  1890.  (Evaline  Davis,  widow,  9  P. 
D.,2.) 

The  soldier  died  December  9,  1892,  leaving  a  widow  and  seven 
minor  children  under  16  years  of  age.  He  owned  a  farm  valued 
at  $800,  also  some  personal  property. 

Held:  That  when  the  income,  as  in  this  case,  is  derived  mainly 
from  the  widow's  manual  labor,  or  the  labor  of  her  children,  it  is 
held  that  the  widow  is  without  other  means  of  support,  under 
the  provisions  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  and  therefore  occupies 
a  pensionable  status. 
Dependence — Act  of  June  27,  1890.  (Emma  T.  Wangelin,  widow, 
9  P.  D.,  76.) 

When  it  is  proved  that  a  w^idow,  by  reason  of  age,  or  perma- 
nent and  physical  or  mental  infirmities,  is  incapable  of  exerting 
a  reasonable  effort  to  add  to  the  income  of  which  she  is  possessed, 
or  the  property  of  which  she  is  possessed,  reduced  to  an  income, 
is  not  sufficient  to  provide  her  with  the  necessaries  of  life,  such 
widow  is  dependent  within  the  terms  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Dependence — Widow — Act     June     27,     1890.     (Matilda     Helve, 
widow,  9  P.  D.,  249.) 

The  soldier,  prior  to  his  death,  deeded  certain  real  estate 
owned  by  him  in  Chicago,  and  valued  at  $8,000,  to  his  brother-in- 
law,  without  consideration,  who  deeded  it  to  the  soldier's  eldest 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  189 

daughter,  without  consideration,  the  purpose  of  these  transfers 
being  to  save  the  property  from  his  creditors.  After  his  death 
the  widow  applied  $2,500  of  her  ow^n  money  to  the  cancellation 
of  a  mortgage  upon  the  aforesaid  property.  She  and  her  three 
children  (all  grown)  live  together  and  use  the  rents  and  profits 
of  the  property  for  their  common  support.  They  have  a  home 
and  net  income  of  $270  per  year,  independent  of  their  earnings. 

Held:  That  claimant  is  not  without  other  means  of  support 
than  her  daily  labor  within  the  meaning  of  the  law. 
Dependence — Act     June    27^    1890 — Widows.     (Barbara    Trotter, 
widow,  9  P.  D.,  254.) 

A  w^dow  who  owns  the  house  in  which  she  lives,  whijch  is  as- 
sessed at  $930,  and  valued,  according  to  her  statement,  at  $1,600, 
and  has  $1,800  loaned  out  at  6  per  cent  interest,  is  not  '^  without 
other  means  of  support  than  her  daily  labor"  within  the  mean- 
ing of  section  3  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 
Dejyendence — Act  June  ^7,  1890.  (Mary  A.  Clarkson,  widow,  9 
P.  D.,  299.) 

Claimant  owns  lots  in  Detroit,  Mich.,  worth  $1,000  and  has 
$3,605.63  in  bank  drawing  4  per  cent  interest.  She  earns  enough 
by  keeping  boarders  to  support  her  comfortably. 

Held:  That  she  is  not  without  other  means  of  support  than 
her  daily  labor  within  the  meaning  of  the  law\  Accumulated 
savings  of  a  widow's  labor  can  not  be  excluded  in  estimating  her 
means  of  support. 
Dependence — Act  of  June  27^  1890.  (Sarah  C.  Thompson,  widow, 
9  P.  D.,  318.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  claimant  was,  at  the  time  of  filing 
her  declaration,  in  possession  of  ample  means  of  support  other 
than  her  daily  labor,  having  been  allowed  $300  from  her  hus- 
band's estate  for  support  for  one  year,  and  she  is  not  pensionable 
under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  under  the  declaration  filed, 
though  she  may  now  be  dependent. 
Dependence — Widow — Act  June  27^  1890.  (Lucinda  Elston, 
widow,  9  P.  D.,  502.) 

The  act  of  June  27,  1890,  offers  $8  per  month  as  a  supplement 
to  the  daily  labor  of  such  w^idows  as  do  not  possess  the  means 
therewith  provided.  As  claimant  is  already  in  the  enjoyment 
of  the  very  means  which  the  statute  would  bestow  on  one  less 
fortunate,  she  is  not  pensionable. 
Dependence — Act  June  27.,  1890 — Widows.  (Rhoda  A.  Gass, 
widow,  10  P.  D.,  9.) 

1.  It  is  not  the  income  alone  of  which  a  widow  is  in  receipt  of, 
but  it  is  all  of  the  resources  possessed  by  her  from  which  a  sup- 


190  PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

port  may  be  derived,  save  that  of  her  daily  labor,  Avhich  must 
be  the  basis  of  judgment  as  to  her  dependency  within  the  mean- 
ing of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890;  and  a  claimant  for  widow's  pen- 
sion under  said  act  who,  at  the  time  of  filing  her  claim,  oAvned, 
in  fee  simple,  60  acres  of  land,  unencumbered,  of  the  value  of 
$2,000,  together  with  the  use,  during  her  natural  life,  of  80  acres, 
assessed  at  $2,300,  is  not  pensionable.  The  law  does  not  take 
into  consideration  either  a  comfortable  or  adequate  support. 

2.  The  act  of  June  27,  1890,  pensions  for  a  condition  existing 
at  the  date  the  widoAV  filed  her  application,  and  the  proof  must 
go  to  the  facts  as  they  existed  at  that  time. 

Dependence — Act  June  27^  1890.  (Mary  E.  Hughes,  widow,  10 
P.  D.,  67.) 

Claimant,  who  ow^ned  real  estate  of  the  value  of  $6,000,  con- 
veyed the  same  to  her  children  for  a  consideration  of  $20 ;  and  it 
is  held  that  she  could  not  create  a  pensionable  status  nor  be 
deemed  without  other  means  of  support  than  her  daily  labor. 

Dependence  —  Act  June  ^7,  1890  —  Widows.  (Sally  Hodgin, 
widow,  10  P.  D.,  326.) 

Claimant,  w^ho  is  72  years  of  age  and  has  no  other  property  or 
income  than  a  farm  of  140  acres,  worth  from  $500  to  $700;  two 
notes,  one  of  $50,  another  of  $55 ;  two  notes  of  $9  each,  and  per- 
sonal property  worth  $10,  is  without  other  means  of  support  than 
her  daily  labor  and  dependent  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890. 

Dependent  widow — Act  June  ^7,  1890 — Income — Means  of  sup- 
port.    (Hannah  Sherry,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  125.) 

A  widow  who  is  possessed  of  a  yearly  income  of  $142.50  and  is 
75  years  of  age  is  not  dependent  within  the  meaning  of  the  act. 

Case  distinguished  in  principle  from  that  of  Eimna  T.  Wange- 
lin  (9  P.  D.,  76),  said  case  being  sustained. 

Dependence — Widow — Act  of  June  27\  1890 — Mean^  of  support — 
Contract  for  support.     (Dorothea  Struck,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  257.) 

Soldier  and  claimant  conveyed  their  property,  which  is  now 
worth  at  least  $5,000,  to  their  son,  who,  in  consideration  thereof, 
agreed  to  furnish  them,  or  either  of  them,  during  the  term  of 
their  natural  lives,  money,  produce,  and  the  usufruct  of  certain 
rooms  and  land  annually,  amounting  to  more  than  $100  a  year 
in  value.  Claimant  seeks  pension  because  her  income  has  been 
less  than  said  amount,  her  son  failing  to  fulfill  his  contract. 

Held:  Constructively  claimant  is  not  dependent  within  the 
meaning  of  the  act,  as  the  terms  of  said  contract  provide  ample 
income,  which  she  may  recover  at  law. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  191 

Dependence  —  Restoration  —  Renewal  —  Rennarriage  —  Decree  of 
nullity.     (Julia  A.  Wheeler,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  329.) 

Claimant's  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  was  termi- 
nated by  reason  of  a  suppositive  remarriage.  Said  remarriage 
was  nullified  ab  initio  by  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction. 
Claimant's  pension  was  renewed  from  date  of  filing  application 
for  restoration,  but  restoration  from  date  of  dropping  was  re- 
fused on  the  ground  that  during  the  term  of  her  de  facto  remar- 
riage she  was  not  without  means  of  support  other  than  her  daily 
labor. 

Held :  ( 1 )  There  is  no  statutory  authority  for  the  renewal  of  a 
widow's  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890.  A  claimant 
whose  name  has  been  dropped  from  the  roll  for  causes  not  speci- 
fied by  law  is  entitled  to  restoration. 

(2)  While  dependency  is  a  prerequisite  of  title  to  a  widow's 
pension  under  said  act,  there  is  no  statutory  authority  for  drop- 
ping her  name  from  the  roll  or  for  suspending  her  pension  on 
the  ground  of  cessation  of  dependency.  Death,  remarriage,  or 
open  and  notorious  adulterous  cohabitation  alone  operate  to  ter- 
minate a  pension  once  lawfully  granted  a  widow  under  said  act 
(overruling  decision  in  the  case  of  Margaret  O'Neill,  8  P.  D., 
333). 

2.  Insane  Widow — Charity  not  Dependence. 

Dependence — Widow — Act  June  27^  1890 — Charitable  institution, 
(Margaret  Morman,  insane  widow,  12  P.  D.,  40.) 

The  care  and  support  of  an  insane  widow  in  a  State  insane 
asylum,  or  by  other  charity,  is  not  such  "  means  of  support  other 
than  her  daily  labor  "  as  will  bar  her  title  to  pension  under  the 
act  in  the  contemplation  thereof.  It  is  held,  therefore,  that  re- 
jection of  the  claim  for  that  reason  was  error,  and  such  action  is 
reversed. 

3.  Act  of  May  9,  1900,  Not  Retroactive. 

Dependence — Act  June  ^7,  1890^  and  May  9,  1900 — Construction — 
Retroactive  legislation.  (Emma  J.  Hallett,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  31.) 
The  act  of  May  9,  1900,  amending  sections  2  and  3  of  the  act 
of  June  27,  1890,  has  no  retroactive  effect  or  operation  whatever, 
and  a  pension  allowed  to  a  widow  under  the  provisions  of  said 
amendatory  act  can  commence  onl}^  from  the  date  of  filing  her 
application  therefor  subsequent  to  the  date  of  its  approval. 

It  appearing  that  this  appellant  was  in  receipt  of  an  annual 
income,  from  all  sources  other  than  her  daily  labor,  of  at  least 
$150,  her  original  application  for  pension  under  the  third  section 
of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  filed  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act 


192  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

of  May  9,  1900,  was  properly  rejected  upon  the  ground  that  she 
Avas  not  without  other  means  of  support  than  her  daily  labor 
within  the  meaning  and  intent  of  said  section. 

4.  Act  of  May  9,  1900,  Dependence  Under. 

Dependence — Widows — Acts  June  27\  1890,  and  May  9, 1900.     (Ra- 
chel Warner,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  266.) 

The  income  mentioned  in  the  act  of  May  9,  1900,  is  construed 
to  be  that  which  the  widow  has,  at  date  of  filing  claim,  as  a  con- 
tinuous revenue,  from  year  to  year,  arising  from  her  property 
or  business  or  from  any  sources  other  than  her  own  labor;  and  an 
allotment  to  her  from  the  soldier's  estate  under  a  statute  giving 
a  widow  and  children  out  of  such  estate  "  sufficient  provisions 
or  other  property  to  support  them  for  twelve  months  from  "  the 
decedent's  death  is  not  necessarily  a  bar  to  pension  under  a  claim 
filed  by  her  several  months  after  his  death,  but  is  one  item, 
merely,  of  income  to  be  considered  in  connection  with  other  facts 
showing  her  general  income-producing  resources  at  date  of  filing 
such  claim. 
Dependence — Widows — Act  June  27^  1890 — Income.  (Harriet  D. 
Howard,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  448.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  this  claimant  has  a  means  of  support 
which  if  conserved  with  reasonable  care  would  produce  an  actual 
net  income  in  excess  of  $250  per  year,  and  she  is  not,  therefore,  en- 
titled to  pension  under  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  as  amended  by  the  act  of  May  9,  1900. 
Dependence — Means  of  support — Act  May  9,  1900.  (Maria  Ann 
Hofrichter,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  80.) 

In  computing  a  widow's  net  income  in  determining  her  depend- 
ency within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  May  9,  1900,  the  rental 
value  of  real  estate  which  she  occupies,  albeit  she  derives  no  in- 
come therefrom,  must  be  taken  into  consideration. 

The  claimant  in  this  case,  having  an  income  in  excess  of  $250 
when  the  rental  value  of  the  house  in  which  she  lives  is  included 
in  computing  her  income,  is  not  pensionable  within  the  meaning 
of  the  act. 
Dependence — Widows — Acts  of  June  27^  1890,  and  May  9,  1900. 
(Nettie  C.  Lutes,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  281.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  the  claimant  owns  property  which 
does,  or  should  if  prudently  managed,  yield  a  net  income  exceed- 
ing $250  per  annum. 

Held:  That  she  is  not  entitled  to  pension  under  the  above- 
named  acts. 
Dependence — Act  of  June  27,  1890,  as  amended  hy  act  of  May  9, 
1900.     (Josefa  Taylor,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  360.) 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  198 

The  evidence  establishes  that  the  claimant  is  not  dependent, 
within  the  meaning  of  the  amendatory  act  of  May  9,  1900,  she 
having  a  net  income  of  $325  per  annum. 
Death    ca use — Origin — General    law — Dependence — Practice — A ct 
May  9, 1900.     (Eunice  T.  Shapley,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  127.) 

Soldier  died  some  forty  years  after  discharge,  of  valvular  dis- 
ease of  the  heart  not  shown  to  be  due,  in  any  manner,  to  his  mili- 
tary service. 

The  evidence  shows  claimant  to  be  possessed  of  property,  real 
and  personal,  of  a  value  of  not  over  $5,000,  her  income,  either 
gross  or  net,  being  problematical. 

Held:  Claim  should  not  have  been  adjudicated  on  the  insuf- 
ficient evidence. 

It  is  error  to  reject  an  ordinary  claim  under  this  act  upon  the 
ground  that  claimant's  resources,  if  prudently  managed,  are  suf- 
ficient to  yield  a  net  income  in  excess  of  $250. 
Practice — Act  of  May  9^  1900 — Dependence — Emdence — Terms  of 
rejection.     (Phihimen  H.  Corey,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  203.) 

In  a  claim  under  the  act  of  May  9, 1900,  when  the  evidence  fails 
to  show,  even  approximately,  claimant's  annual  income,  it  is  in- 
sufficient whereon  to  base  a  sound  conclusion  as  to  the  issue,  and  it 
is  error  to  adjudicate  the  claim  on  an  assumption  of  fact  not  war- 
ranted by  the  evidence. 

It  is  error  to  reject  an  ordinary  claim  under  said  act  upon  the 
ground  that  claimant's  resources,  if  prudently  managed,  are  suf- 
ficient to  yield  a  net  annual  income  in  excess  of  $250;  and  it  is 
also  error  to  reject  a  claim  under  this  act  on  the  ground  that 
claimant's  resources  are  amply  sufficient  to  produce  a  net  annual 
income  in  excess  of  $250. 

The  terms  of  the  rejection  of  a  claim  should  be  in  accordance 
with  the  facts  in  the  particular  case. 

5.  Dependency,  Mexican  War  Widow. 

Dependency — Act    of    January    29^    1887,    construed.     (Johanna 

Gates,  widow,  10  P.  D.,  28.) 

A  widow  before  becoming  62  years  of  age  is  not  entitled  to 

pension  under  the  act  of  January  29,  1887,  unless  she  has  no  other 

means  of  support  than  the  ordinary  proceeds  of  her  manual  labor 

and  the  contributions  of  others  not  legally  bound  to  aid  in  her 

support. 
Dependence — Mothers — Act  of  January  29,   1887 — Section  .^707, 

Revised  Statutes — Act  May  9,  1900.     (Margaret  C.   Clements, 

widow,  15  P.  D.,  324.) 

13070—06 13 


194  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

The  only  dependency  of  a  widow  entitling  her  to  pension  under 
the  act  of  January  29,  1887,  is  that  prescribed  in  section  4707  of 
the  Revised  Statutes  as  to  a  soldier's  mother ;  and  the  provisions 
of  the  act  of  May  9,  1900,  as  to  the  condition  of  a  widow  entitling 
her  to  pension  under  that  act,  have  no  application  to  or  bearing 
upon  the  question  of  dependency  under  the  former  act. 

A  widow  who  is  59  years  of  age  and  so  disabled  as  to  be  unable 
to  do  any  work,  and  whose  only  source  of  income  is  a  house  and 
lot  valued  at  $2,800  and  netting  at  most  an  annual  income  of  but 
$110  or  $120,  is  dependent  within  the  act  of  January  29,  1887. 

ANNOTATION. 

The  third  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  confers  title  to 
pension  upon  the  widows  of  officers  or  enlisted  men  who  served 
for  ninety  days  in  the  Army  or  Navy  of  the  United  States  dur- 
ing the  late  war  of  the  rebellion. 

The  third  section  of  the  act  of  May  9,  1900,  relating  to  widows, 
enlarges  the  amount  of  the  widow's  income  from  "  without  other 
means  of  support  than  her  daily  labor  "  to  ''  an  annual  net  in- 
come not  exceeding  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  per  year." 
The  act  of  May  9,  1900,  is  not  retroactive  as  to  widows'  claims; 
so  where  a  widow  has  pending  tAvo  declarations,  one  filed  prior 
to  May  9,  1900,  and  the  other  filed  subsequent  to  said  date,  the 
former  must  be  adjudicated  (as  to  dependence)  under  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  unamended,  and  the  latter  under  said  act  as 
amended  by  the  act  of  May  9,  1900.  (See  case  of  Emma  J. 
Hallett,  13  P.  D.,  31.)  Under  the  practice  of  the  Bureau,  the 
phrase  "  w^ithout  other  means  of  support  than  her  daily  labor," 
relating  to  a  wadow^'s  dependence,  in  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
was  construed  to  mean  a  net  annual  income  exclusive  of  her 
daily  labor  of  about  $100,  and  in  all  dependent  w^idows'  claims 
filed  prior  to  May  9,  1900,  if  the  widow's  net  annual  income  at 
and  after  the  date  of  filing  claim  exceeded  $100,  the  claim  should 
be  rejected.  In  all  dependent  widow^s'  claims  filed  after  May  9, 
1900,  if  the  net  annual  income  of  the  widow  on  and  after  the 
date  of  filing  claim  did  not  exceed  the  sum  of  $250,  the  claim 
should  be  admitted,  the  pension  to  commence  from  date  of  filing 
the  claim,  after  the  passage  of  the  act  of  May  9,  1900. 

The  law  requires  in  a  widow's  case :  That  the  soldier  or  sailor 
served  at  least  ninety  days,  his  enlistment  having  been  prior  to 
the  termination  of  the  war  of  the  rebellion  and  continuing  at 
least  ninety  days;  that  he  was  honorably  discharged  (on  this 
point  see  chapters  entitled  '*  Desertion  "  and  *'  Disloyalty  ")  ; 
proof  of  death  of  soldier,  but  it  need  not  have  been  the  result  of 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  195 

his  army  service;  that  the  widow  has  not  a  net  annual  income 
exceeding  $100,  -in  all  claims  filed  prior  to  May  9,  1900,  and  that 
she  has  not  a  net  annual  income  exceeding  $250,  in  all  claims 
filed  after  the  passage  of  the  act  of  May  9,  1900;  that  she  mar- 
ried the  soldier  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890 ; 
that  she  is  the  soldier's  legal  widow.  In  all  claims  filed  either 
under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  unamended,  or  under  said  act  as 
amended  by  the  act  of  May  9,  1900,  the  rate  of  the  widow's  pen- 
sion is  $8  per  month  without  regard  to  the  rank  of  her  late  hus- 
band, the  soldier  or  sailor,  and  $2  per  month  for  each  child  of 
such  officer  or  enlisted  man  under  16  years  of  age. 

DEPENDENT  BROTHERS  AND  SISTERS. 

See  Limitation  :  No.  1  (0  P.  D.,  100.  504;  14.  P.  D..  489). 

Dependence — Means  of  support — Section  Jf707^  Reoised  Statutes, 
(Dottie  May  Demaree,  sister,  14  P.  D.,  4.) 

When  it  has  been  determined  that  a  mother  or  father  of  a  de- 
ceased soldier  was  dependent  on  him  for  support  as  provided  by 
section  4707  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  and  the  proof  shows  that 
the  minor  brothers  and  sisters  had  no  independent  means  of  sup- 
port, their  dependency  follows  as  a  necessary  consequence;  and 
upon  the  death  of  the  parents,  or  the  death  of  the  father  and  re- 
marriage of  the  mother,  they  become  entitled  to  pension  on  proof 
of  relationship  and  such  other  proof  as  may  be  necessary  to 
negative  the  last  proviso  of  said  section. 

ANNOTATION. 

The  claims  of  dependent  brothers  and  sisters  are  adjudicated 
wholly  under  section  4707,  Revised  Statutes,  as  amended  by  the 
act  of  March  3,  1879. 

In  all  claims  filed  prior  to  June  30,  1880,  the  pension,  if  al- 
lowed, commenced  from  date  of  the  soldier's  death,  where  the 
soldier  left  no  parents  surviving,  or  where  dependent  parents 
survived,  from  the  date  of  the  death  or  remarriage  of  the  mother 
(no  father  surviving)  or  the  death  of  the  father  in  case  he  was 
the  only  parent  who  survived  the  soldier,  or  who  had  survived 
the  mother  and  drew  the  pension  until  his  death.  The  claimant 
dependent  brothers  and  sisters  had  to  prove:  First,  that  sol- 
dier's death  was  a  result  of  his  service;  second,  soldier's  celi- 
bacy; third,  relationshij^;  fourth,  contributions  by  soldier  or  his 
willingness  to  contribute  to  the  support  of  claimant  or  his  and 
their  parents  within  Iavo  years  prior  to  his  death ;  fifth,  that  the 
claimant  minors,  or  ther  parents,  were  dependent  for  support 
upon  the  soldier  the  year  he  die^  and  every  year  since^  anci  sixth, 


196  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

proof  of  the  dates  of  the  minors'  birth,  their  existence,  and  the 
dates  of  the  death  of  their  parents. 

The  act  of  March  3,  1899,  called  the  "•  limitation  act,"  changed 
the  date  of  the  commencement  of  the  pension  to  dependent 
brothers  and  sisters,  as  to  all  such  claims  filed  after  the  30th  day 
of  June,  1880,  to  the  date  of  filing  the  declaration  in  the  claim. 
And  in  such  claims  filed  after  June  30,  1880,  the  proof  necessary 
was  the  same  as  stated  above  in  requirements  first  to  sixth,  inclu- 
sive, except  that  instead  of  requiring  proof  of  dependence  the 
year  soldier  died  and  each  year  since,  it  was  only  necessary  (as  to 
dependence)  to  show  dependence  at  the  date  soldier  died  and 
since  filing  claim. 

Such  is  now  the  practice. 

Dependence. — Where  it  has  been  determined  that  a  mother  or 
father  of  a  deceased  soldier  was  dependent  on  him  for  support, 
as  provided  by  section  4707,  Kevised  Statutes — that  is  to  say, 
that  soldier's  parent  or  parents  were  in  a  dependent  condition 
at  date  of  soldier's  death,  and  that  he  contributed  to  their  sup- 
port, or  acknowledged  his  obligation  so  to  do,  within  two  years 
prior  to  his  death,  or  that  soldier  was  mider  the  age  of  21  years 
for  any  period  during  said  tAvo  years,  then  if  the  proof  shows 
that  said  minor  brothers  and  sisters  had  no  independent  means 
of  support  their  dependence  upon  the  soldier  is  established. 
(See  Dottie  May  Demoree,  14  P.  I).,  4.) 

Legitimacy. — As  the  legitimacy  of  the  soldier  is  not  a  factor  in 
a  dependent  mother's  case,  so  the  title  of  dependent  brothers  and 
sisters  to  pension  does  not  depend  upon  the  validity  of  the  mar- 
riage of  their  parents.  It  is  sufficient  if  they  show  that  they 
are  offspring  of  the  same  parent  or  parents.  (See  Cotton  case, 
8  P.  D.,  18.) 

That  is  to  say,  it  is  not  necessary  to  prove  the  marriage  of  sol- 
dier's parents  in  an  application  for  pension  by  his  mother  or 
by  his  minor  brothers  and  sisters.  The  soldier's  father,  however, 
to  have  title  must  prove  a  legal  marriage  to  the  soldier's  mother. 

In  case  of  the  death  of  the  soldier's  mother  the  soldier's  father 
would  be  next  in  line  of  succession,  and  so  long  as  he  is  liring 
the  minor  brothers  and  sisters  of  the  soldier  have  no  title  to  pen- 
sion, although  the  father  of  the  soldier  has  himself  no  title  to 
pension,  for  the  reason  that  he  was  never  married  to  the  soldier's 
mother.  (See  cases  of  Adam  Byers,  4  P.  D.,  408,  and  Georgianna 
V.  Colder,  5  P.  D.,  18.) 

My  private  opinion,  however,  is  that  such  illegitimate  minor 
brothers  and  sisters  have  title,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
their  natural  father  is  alive,  because  it  is  analogous  to  the  case 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  197 

of  minor  children  Avhere  soldier's  living  widow  married  soldier 
after  the  passage  of  the  act  of  June  27, 1890.     (See  13  P.  D.,  148.) 

r?Y/('^.— Although  the  first  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  re- 
lates (mly  to  dependent  parents,  and  is  not  considered  a  repeal  of 
section  4707,  Revised  Statutes,  yet  in  practice  it  is  considered  such 
a  modification  of  said  section  that  it  affects  even  the  status  of 
alleged  dependent  brothers  and  sisters.  For  example,  that  part 
of  the  second  proviso  of  said  section  4707  which  reads  that  "  upon 
the  death  of  the  father  and  remarriage  of  the  mother  "  the  "  de- 
pendent brothers  and  sisters  under  1()  years  of  age  shall  jointly 
become  entitled  to  pension,"  etc.,  is  so  far  repealed  by  the  first 
section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  that  a  mother's  title  to  pen- 
sion under  section  4707,  Revised  Statutes,  as  amended  by  the 
first  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  is  not  necessarily  de- 
stroyed by  her  remarriage.  In  other  words,  if  the  mother  can 
prove  her  present  dependence^  notwithstanding  her  remarriage, 
she  has  title;  and  so  long  as  the  mother  has  title  the  dependent 
brothers  and  sisters  have  no  title,  although  their  mother  has 
remarried. 

Dependent  brothers  and  sisters  of  the  half  blood  are  entitled 
equally  with  those  of  the  full  blood. 

DESERTION. 

References. 

See  Age:  No.  2  (11  P."d.,  193,  240,  286). 

See  Disloyalty  :  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  12). 

See  Division  of  Pension:  Nos.  1,  4,  10,  12,  13,  15  (15  P.  D.,  221,  382: 
11  P.  D.,  260;  12  P.  D.,  7,  56,  421,  507;  13  P.  D.,  134  142,  143,  177, 
180,  212,  430;  14  P.  D.,  45,  130,  159,  191,  394,  404,  521 ;  15  P.  D.,  90, 
132,  .342 ;  13  P.  D.,  77,  218,  422,  424 ;  14  P.  D.,  146). 

See  Increase:  No.  8  (10  P.  D.,  2.32). 

See  Practice:  No.  12  (11  P.  D.,  13). 

See  Service:  Nos.  7,  16,  27  (10  P.  D.,  169;  12  P.  D.,  226;  13  P.  D., 
46)  ;  No.  22  (15  P.  D.,  548). 
Index. 

1.  John  Norton,  the  leading  case. 

2.  Under  act  of  .Tune  27,  1890. 

3.  General  law,  when  entitled. 

(a)  When  not  entitled. 

4.  .Joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902. 

(a)  As  to  title  under  old  and  new  laws. 

(b)  What  is  "  bounty  or  gratuity." 

(c)  When  last  service  is  less  than  six  months. 

(d)  An  "  appointed  man  "  entitled. 

(e)  A  commissioned. officer  in  last  service. 

(f)  What  is  "fsiithful  last  service." 

(g)  Declarations  filed  prior  to  act. 

5.  Deserting  minors  pensionable. 

6.  Desertion  during  civil  war  no  bar,  when. 

7.  Commissioned  ofHcer  dishonorably  discharged. 


198  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

1.  John  Norton,  the  Leading  Case. 

Desertion — Honorable  discharge.     (John  Norton,  9  P.  D.,  382.) 

1.  In  claims  for  pension  under  the  acts  of  January  29,  1887, 
June  27,  1890,  and  July  27,  1892,  an  honorable  discharge  from  all 
enlistments  for  service  in  the  particular  war  to  which  these  acts 
refer  is  a  prerequisite  to  pension. 

2.  In  claims  for  pension  under  sections  4692  and  4693,  Revised 
Statutes,  on  account  of  disability  incurred  in  the  line  of  duty  dur- 
ing a  term  of  enlistment  from  which  the  claimant  deserted,  the 
claim  should  be  rejected,  for  the  reason  that  there  is  no  period 
from  which  the  pension  could  commence,  as  claimant  had  never 
been  discharged  from  such  term  of  service  and  for  the  further 
reason  that  claimant  having  violated  and  repudiated  his  said 
contract  of  enlistment  he  thus  forfeited  all  right  to  any  benefits 
that  were  incident  to  such  enlistment. 

3.  If  the  claim  for  invalid  pension  under  sections  4692  and 
4693,  Revised  Statutes,  is  based  upon  disability  incurred  in  the 
line  of  duty  during  a  term  of  enlistment  from  which  the  claimant 
was  legally  discharged,  a  desertion  from  a  subsequent  enlistment, 
of  itself,  is  not  a  bar  to  pension.  If  the  claim  was  filed  prior  to 
July  1,  1880,  the  pension  would  commence  from  the  date  of  dis- 
charge from  the  term  of  enlistment  during  which  the  disability 
was  incurred,  but  such  pension  will  cease  upon  reenlistment  and 
can  not  be  restored  while  claimant  is  in  the  service,  nor  while  in 
desertion  from  such  subsequent,  enlistment.  (Case  of  Henry 
Davinney,  7  P.  D.,  234.) 

'  4.  If  the  disability  was  incurred  in  the  service  under  a  subse- 
quent enlistment,  while  the  claimant  was  a  deserter  from  a  prior 
enlistment  which  had  not  terminated  prior  to  such  reenlistment, 
the  claim  should  be  rejected  on  the  ground  that  the  disability 
was  not  incurred  in  the  line  of  duty,  but  while  claimant  was 
absent  from  his  proper  command  in  violation  of  his  former  con- 
tract of  enlistment. 

5.  The  decision  in  the  case  of  George  Lessor  (8  P.  D.,  114),  in 
so  far  as  the  same  conflicts  w^ith  the  rules  laid  down  here,  is  over- 
ruled. 

2.  Under  Act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Desertion — Act  June   ^7,   1890.     (Bessie   C.    Wheeler,   widow,   9 
P.  D.,  155.)       . 

As  this  soldier  deserted  from  his  first  contract  of  enlistment 
during  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  which  charge  of  desertion  the 
War  Department  declines  to  remove,  this  claimant  has  no  pen- 
sionable status. 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  199 

Desertion — Discharge.     (William  Ross,  9  P.  D.,  407.) 

1.  Claimant  having  enlisted  for  service  in  the  war  of  the  rebel- 
lion August  22,  1864,  and  deserted  said  service  November  14, 
1865,  he  can  not  be  held  to  have  been  honorably  discharged  from 
his  service  in  the  war  of  the  rebellion. 

2.  The  fact  that  he  served  after  July  1,  1865,  does  not  warrant 
a  holding  that  he  was  honorably  discharged  on  said  date,  as  he 
was  never  either  actually  or  constructively  discharged. 

Desertion — Discharge — -Military  age — Act  June  ^7,  1890.     (Aura 
Hetherington,  widow,  10  P.  D.,  355.) 

A  minor  18  years  of  age  could  in  1861  enlist  in  the  regular 
or  volunteer  service,  and  that  prior  to  the  act  of  May  15,  1872, 
such  enlistment  was  valid  without  the  written  consent  of  parent 
or  guardian. 

Soldier  enlisted  June  1,  1861,  in  Company  I,  First  Minnesota 
Volunteer  Infantry,  at  the  age  of  19  years  and  10  months.  He 
deserted  from  said  service  June  19,  1861,  and  the  charge  of  de- 
sertion has  not  been  removed  on  the  records  of  the  War  De- 
partment. While  a  deserter  he  again  enlisted  in  Company  H, 
First  Minnesota  Volunteer  Cavalry,  November  8,  1862,  and  was 
discharged  November  24,  1863. 

Held:  That  his  first  enlistment  was  valid  and  his  desertion 
therefrom  bars  his  widow's  right  to  pension  under  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890.  (See  the  cases  of  John  Norton,  9  P.  D.,  382;  in- 
structions to  Commissioner  of  Pensions,  4  P.  D.,  382;  Susan 
Colgin,  5  P.  D.,  127;  James  Cullen,  6  P.  D.,  72;  Kate  Eibel,  7 
P.  D.,  179;  Mary  E.  Walker,  ibid.,  197;  Elizabeth  J.  Halfhill,  8 
P.  D.,  467;  Bessie  C.  Wheeler,  9  P.  D.,  155;  Susan  Williams,  10 
P.  D.,  82,  and  De  Witt  C.  Nash,  ibid.,  141.) 
Discharge — Desertion — Practice.  (Jerome  Woodin,  alias  Frank 
Allen,  11  P.  D.,  13.) 

In  1891  pension  was  allowed  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
when  the  practice  required  only  a  final  honorable  discharge  from 
the  service;  therefore  the  desertion  of  an  applicant  for  pension 
under  said  act  from  his  first  service  was  no  bar  to  pension.  The 
practice  having  been  changed  so  as  to  require  an  honorable  dis- 
charge from  all  service  contracted  to  be  performed  during  the 
war  of  the  rebellion,  pensioner's  name  was  properly  dropped 
from  the  rolls  on  the  ground  that  he  was  a  deserter. 
Desertion — Minors — MHttary  age — Voidahle  enlistment,  (Francis 
M.  Samuels,  alias  Charles'Smith,  12  P.  D.,  80.) 

Claimant  having  enlisted  when  he  was  over  18  years  of  age  in 
18()1,  and  deserted  from  said  service,  and  subsequently  reenlisted, 
has  no  title  to  pension  under  the  act  in  question. 


200  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Discharge — Seroice — Act  J  we   27^   1890.     (Sarah   Bush,   widow, 
9  P.  D.,  144.) 

The  soldier  having  been  dishonorably  discharged  from  his 
first  term  of  enlistment  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  and  hav- 
ing subsequently  reenlisted  and  served  for  more  than  ninety  days 
during  said  war  and  received  an  honorable  discharge,  his  widow 
is  not  entitled  to  pension  under  section  '?>  of  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  said  act  requiring  an  honorable  discharge  from  all  service 
contracted  to  be  performed  during  the  war.  (Citing  Stephen 
H.  Carey,  0  P.  D.,  42;  James  Cullen,  0  P.  D.,  72;  Franklin  S. 
Cowen,  7  P.  D.,  374,  and  George  Vansickle,  8  P.  D.,  336.) 

3.  General  Law,  When  Entitled. 

Desertion — Restoration.     (Daniel  McGraw,  9  P.  D.,  442.) 

This  appellant  was  pensioned  for  disability  incurred  during 
his  first  term  of  service,  from  which  he  was  honorably  dis- 
charged May  24,  1862,  from  that  date.  He  was  subsequently 
drafted  and  served  until  xVpril  8,  1864,  when  he  deserted. 

Held:  That  he  is  entitled  to  restoration  of  his  pension,  de- 
ducting pension  for  the  whole^  period  during  which  he  could 
have  been  legally  held  to  service  under  the  draft.     (John  Nor- 
ton, 9  P.  D.,  382.) 
Desertion— Discharge.     (De  Witt  C.  Nash,  10  P.  D.,  141.) 

As  claimant  deserted  and  was  never  discharged  from  his  sec- 
ond service  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  he  has  no  pension- 
able status  under  said  act,  but  is  pensionable  under  the  general 
law  as  to  disabilities  received  in  his  first  service,  from  which  he 
w^as  discharged,  his  claim  being  filed  subsequent  to  July  1,  1880. 
Desertion — Record.     (Sarah  Ann  Sullivan,  widow,  10  P.  D.,  55.) 

It  appearing  that  the  official  record  of  the  deceased  soldier's 
military  service  is  incomplete,  and  did  not  furnish  sufficient  data 
upon  which  to  base  the  action  rejecting  this  claim,  said  action 
is  reversed,  with  directions  that  the  same  be  reopened,  the  War 
Department  being  called  upon  for  additional  information  rela- 
tive to  the  length  of  the  term  for  which  the  deceased  soldier  first 
enlisted  in  Company  H,  Nineteenth  Kentucky  Volunteer  In- 
fantry, and  the  claim  readjudicated  on  its  merits  in  accordance 
with  the  decision  of  this  Department  in  the  case  of  John  Norton 
(9P.  D.,  382). 
Desertion-^Service — Honorable  discharge.  (Henry  P.,  alias  Pat- 
rick H.,  Burns,  11  P.  D.,  332.) 

The  appellant  first  enlisted,  under  the  name  of  Patrick  H. 
Burns,  for  two  years,  in  Company  B,  Thirty-fifth  New  York 
Volunteer  Infantry,  and  served  therein  until  February,   1862, 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  201 

when  he  deserted,  and  was  never  fonually  discharged  therefrom. 
He  enlisted  a  second  time  on  Augnst  7.  18()2,  whiU^  a  deserter 
from  said  organization,  nnder  his  correct  name  of  Kenry  P. 
Bnrns,  for  three  years,  in  Company  M,  Fifth  New  York  Heavy 
Artillery,  and  served  therein  nntil  Jnne  26,  1805,  wdien  he  was 
mnstered  ont  and  honorably  discharged  the  service  with  said 
^company.  He  was  pensioned  nnder  the  provisions  of  the  gen- 
eral pension  law  for  an  injnry  to  head  and  back,  incurred  in  July, 
1864,  during  his  second  term  of  enlistment.  On  February  9, 
1891.  he  was  dropped  from  the  rolls  because  of  his  desertion 
from  Company  B,  Thirty-fifth  New  York  Volunteer  Infantry. 

Held:  That  appellant's  contract  of  enlistment  in  Company  B, 
Thirty-fifth  New  York  Volunteer  Infantry,  having  expired  by 
limitation  long  prior  to  the  incurrence  of  the  injury  for  which 
he  Avas  })ensioned,  the  offense  of  desertion  terminated  with  said 
contract  of  enlistment,  and  at  the  time  of  the  incurrence  of  said 
injury  he  was  no  longer  in  desertion,  but  w^as  in  line  of  military 
duty  under  his  second  enlistment,  and  occupied  a  pensionable 
status,  and  the  action  of  dropping  him  from  the  rolls  because  of 
desertion  from  his  first  service  was  error.  (See  case  of  John 
Norton,  9  P.  D.,  382.) 
Desertion — Honorahle  discharge — Dropfing.  (Henry  P.,  alias 
Patrick  H.,  Burns,  11  P.  D.,  862.) 

A  soldier  is  pensionable  for  a  disability  incurred  subsequent  to 
the  expiration,  by  limitation,  of  a  term  of  enlistment  from  which 
he  had  deserted  and  was  never  discharged,  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  the  second  contract  of  enlistment  was  entered  into  prior 
to  the  expiration  of  the  first  term  of  enlistment,  provided  said 
second  term  of  enlistment  be  faithfully  performed  and  com- 
pleted, and  l)e  not  avoided  by  the  United  States. 

a)  When  not  Entitled. 

Desertion — Discharge.     (Samuel  B.  Dump,  9  P.  D.,  416.) 

During  the  whole  period  that  appellant  served  in  the  One 
hundred  and  thirty-third  Ohio  Volunteers,  in  which  he  alleges 
he  contracted  his  disability,  he  was  a  deserter  from  the  United 
States  Navy,  and  his  disability  was  not  therefore  incurred  in  the 
line  of  duty,  and  he  is  therefore  not  pensionable  under  the  gen- 
eral law  nor  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890.  (John  Norton,  9 
P.  D.,  382.) 

Desertion  —  Honorable  discharge  —  Restoration.     (Lewis  Rankin, 
11  P.  D.,  373.) 

It  appearing  from  the  official  record  of  this  appellant's  mili- 
tary service,  and  from  the  other  evidence  in  the  case,  that  at  the 


202  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

date  he  incurred  the  disabilities  in  the  service  on  account  of 
which  he  was  formerly  pensioned  he  was  in  desertion  from  a 
prior  term  of  service  and  was  at  said  time  absent  from  his  proper 
command  without  leave  and  not  in  the  line  of  dnty,  he  is  not 
entitled  to  be  restored  to  the  pension  roll  under  the  present  rul- 
ings and  decisions  of  this  Department.  (See  cases  of  John  Nor- 
ton, 9  P.  D.,  382,  and  widow  of  John  Sullivan,  10  P.  D.,  55.) 

Desertion — Service — Line  of  duty.  (Isaac  B.  Goforth,  alias  Na- 
poleon B.  Gordon,  12  P.  D.,  253.) 

At  the  time  of  incurring  his  alleged  disabilities  in  the  Seventh 
Kansas  Infantry,  claimant  is  shown  to  have  been  a  deserter  from 
Company  E,  First  United  States  Infantry,  and  he  Avas  therefore 
not  in  line  of  duty.  (John  Norton,  1)  P.  D.,  382;  John  Sullivan, 
10  P.  D.,  55;  Lewis  Rankin,  11  P.  D.,  373.) 

Desertion  —  Discharge  —  Service.  (Sandford  P.,  alias  Peter  S., 
Burke,  12  P.  D.,  370.) 

It  appearing  from  the  official  record  of  this  appellant's  mili- 
tary service,  and  from  his  own  sworn  statements,  that  the  dis- 
abilities on  account  of  which  he  was  formerly  pensioned  had 
been  contracted  during  a  term  of  enlistment  from  which  he  had 
deserted,  and  from  which  he  had  never  been  discharged,  he  is 
not  entitled  to  be  restored  to  the  pension  roll,  for  the  reason  that 
there  is  no  period  from  which  pension  on  account  thereof  could 
properly  be  made  to  commence ,  under  the  law,  and  he,  having 
violated  and  repudiated  his  said  contract  of  enlistment,  has  for- 
feited all  right  to  any  benefits  that  were  incident  to  such  enlist- 
ment. (John  Norton,  9  P.  D.,  382;  Lewis  Rankin,  11  P.  D., 
373.) 

4.  Joint  Resolution  of  July  1,  1902. 

(a)  As  TO  Title  under  Old  and  New  Laws. 

Service  —  Discharge  —  Desertion  —  Joint  resolution  July  i,  W02. 
(Fannie  Cuchfili  widow,  12  P.  D.,  450.) 

The  rejection  of  the  claim  for  widow^'s  pension  under  the  third 
section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  upon  the  ground  that  "  sol- 
dier was  not  honorably  discharged  from  all  rebellion  service," 
being  no  longer  tenable  under  the  joint  resolution  of  Congress, 
approved  July  1,  1902,  said  claim  is  hereby  remanded  for  reopen- 
ing and  read  judication  under  the  provisions  of  said  joint  reso- 
lution, and  so  much  of  the  present  appeal  as  relates  to  said  action 
of  rejection  is  hereby  dismissed. 

It  appearing  that  the  disabilities  from  which  it  is  alleged  the 
soldier  died,  and  upon  which  the  w^idow's  claim  under  section 


I 


} 


¥ 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  203 

4702,  Kevised  Statutes,  is  based,  were  contracted  by  the  soldier 
while  absent  from  his  proper  command  without  leave,  and  in 
viohition  of  his  first  contract  of  enlistment,  and  not  iii  line  of 
military  duty,  this  appellant  has  no  title  to  pension  as  the  widow 
of  the  soldier  under  the  provisions  of  said  section.  (See  cases 
of  John  Norton,  9  P.  D.,  382;  widow^  of  John  Sullivan,  10  P.  D., 
55;  Patrick  H.  Burns,  11  P.  D.,  332  and  362,  and  Lewis  Rankin, 
ibid.,  373.) 

Desertion — Discharge— Joint  resolution  of  July  i,  J 902.  (William 
P.  McMurtry,  15  P.  D.,  03.) 

Section  2  of  the  joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902,  is  applicable 
in  the  administration  of  the  pension  laws  generally,  both  under 
the  Revised  Statutes  and  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Said  section  establishes,  however,  a  new  pensionable  status, 
under  which  pension  can  commence  only  from  the  date  of  filing 
of  a  claim  subsequent  to  the  date  of  its  enactment. 

Any  person  coming  within  the  operation  of  said  section  shall 
be  held  and  considered  to  have  been  honorably  discharged  from 
a  prior  service  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion  (m  the  date  j^re- 
ceding  his  next  following  legal  enlistment. 

A  disability  incurred  in  line  of  duty  in  such  former  service 
prior  to  a  charge  of  desertion  from  that  service,  or  one  incurred 
in  line  of  duty  in  such  following  service,  is  pensionable,  notwith- 
standing such  desertion. 

(b)  What  is  ''  Bounty  or  Gratuity." 

Discharge — Desertion — Joint  resolution  of  July  7,  1902 — Act  June 
27, 1890.     (Bridget  Whelan,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  380.) 

The  "  bounty  or  gratuity  "  specified  in  the  second  section  of  the 
joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902,  comprises  only  those  additional 
governmental  benefits  conferred  or  compensations  paid,  other 
than  pay  and  pensions,  for  or  on  account  of  military  service 
rendered  or  to  be  rendered,  and  does  not  include  the  considera- 
tion paid  to  a  substitute  soldier  by  his  principal  under  their  pri- 
vate contract  whereby  the  former  agrees  to  serve  in  the  place  and 
stead  of  the  latter. 

Desertion — Discharge — Joint  resolution  of  July  7,  1902 — Bounty. 
(Jonathan  King,  14  P.  D.,  466.) 

The  evidence  satisfactorily  establishes  that  the  soldier  did  not 
receive  any  bounty  or  gratuity  other  than  from  the  United  States 
upon  his  enlistment  in  Company  D,  Twelfth  Kentucky  Infantry, 
and  having  served  for  six  months  under  his  last  enlistment  and 
been   honorably   discharged   therefrom,   and   his   entire   service 


204  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

thereunder  having  been  faithful,  he  conies  within  the  provisions 
of  the  joint  resolution  of  July  1,  190*2. 
EtHdence — Burden  of  proof — Joint  resolution  J uly  7,  liHKi — Prne- 
tne.     (Catharine  A.,  Avidow  of  Isaac  P.  Brown,  alias  Albert  B. 
Cole,  U  P.  I).,  375.) 

1.  No  burden  of  proof  rests  upon  the  Government  in  an  adju- 
dication under  section  2  of  the  joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902, 
to  show^  a  soldier  received  the  bounty  or  gratuity  referred  to  in 
that  section:  but  the  burden  of  proof  rests  ahme.  throughout  said 
adjudication,  upon  the  claimant  to  show  to  the  satisfacticm  of  the 
Commissioner  of  Pensions  and  the  Secretary  that  said  soldier 
did  not  receive  such  bounty  or  gratuity. 

2.  A  claimant,  in  seeking  to  establish  this  fact,  should  produce 
all  obtainable  evidence  tending  materially  to  show  the  facts,  cir- 
cumstances, and  conditions  as  regards  payment  or  receipt  of 
such  bounty  or  gratuity  of  the  soldier's  seccmd  enlistment,  and 
competent  testimony  upon  this  point  is  that  of  comrades,  officials, 
or  ex-officials  of  the  Stated  county,  or  municipality  where  such 
enlistment  was  made,  or  other  persons  who  were  in  a  position  to 
have  personal  or  record  knowledge  of  the  matter  of  such  bounty 
or  gratuity. 

3.  A  claim  should  not  be  rejected  until  the  claimant  has  been 
called  upon  and  given  a  fair  opportunity  to  furnish  such  testi- 
mony. 

4.  Whether  the  evidence  in  any  case  establishes  the  fact  that 
the  soldier  did  not  receive  such  bounty  or  gratuity  is  a  question 
of  judgment  on  all  such  facts,  circumstances,  and  conditions 
shown. 

Restoration — Joint  resolution  of  July  7,  1902 — Bounty.     (William 
Stone,  alias  AYilliam  Semple  or  Sample,  15  P.  D.,  11 G.) 

1.  The  amount  of  bounty  or  gratuity  receivable  by  soldier  if 
he  had  faithfully  fulfilled  his  prior  contract  of  enlistment,  under 
the  terms  of  the  second  section  of  the  joint  resolution  of  July  1, 
1902,  is  determinable  by  laws  and  ordinances.  Federal,  State,  or 
local,  which  Avere  in  effect  at  the  time  of  his  subsequent  enlist- 
ment. Bounty  which  might  have  been  receivable  under  any  law 
enacted  subsequent  to  his  reenlistment  may  not  be  considered. 

2.  In  the  adjudication  of  claims  under  the  second  section  of 
the  joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902,  the  amount  of  bounty  from 
all  sources  receivable  on  account  of  his  first  enlistment,  subject 
to  the  above  limitation,  is  to  be  contrasted  with  the  amount  of 
bounty  or  gratuity,  other  than  from  the  United  States,  actually 
received  by  him  on  account  of  his  last  contract  of  service. 

3.  National  bounty  acts  and  orders  applicable  to  said  joint  reso- 
lution considered. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  205 

Restor<itio)i — Joint  resolution  of  July  7,  1902 — Bounty — Deser- 
tion — Military  age.     (William  H.  Stevens,  15  P.  D.,  525.) 

Soldier  being  18  years  of  age  at  first  enlistment  was  compe- 
tent to  make  a  binding  contract  for  service  with  the  United 
States,  and  desertion  before  expiration  of  time  of  contract  at- 
tached to  him  the  disabilities  prescribed  by  law.  These  clung 
to  him  when  he  enlisted  a  second  time. 

The  evidence  showing  that  soldier  received,  on  account  of  his 
second  enlistment,  bounty,  or  gratuity  other  than  from  the 
United  States  in  excess  of  what  he  would  have  received  had  he 
completed  his  first  contract  of  service,  he  has  no  title  to  pension 
under  the  act  of  »Tune  27,  1890,  and  the  joint  resolution  of  July  1, 
1902.  and  the  droi)ping  of  his  name  from  the  roll  was  correct. 

(c)  When  Last  Service  is  Less  Than  Six  Months. 

Discharge — Serrice — Desertion — Joint  resohition  of  July  7,  1902 — 
Act  of  June  27,  1890.     (Daniel  G.  Peterson,  13  P.  I).,  84(1) 

The  claimant  having  deserted  from  a  prior  service  during  the 
war  of  the  rebellion,  he  is  not  pensionable  under  the  act  of  June 
27,  1890,  and  his  honorable  discharge  from  a  subsequent  service 
can  not  be  considered  under  the  joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902, 
as  such  discharge  also  from  his  prior  service,  as  said  subsequent 
service  was  for  less  than  six  months. 

Service — Joint  resolution  July  7,  1902 — Faithful  sernice — Honor- 
able discharge — Desertion.  (John  Veirs,  alias  William  Dow- 
dell,  14  P.  D.,  552.) 

Soldier  had  three  terms  of  service,  from  the  first  of  which  he 
was  never  honorably  discharged.  His  second  term  of  service, 
from  which  he  was  honorably  discharged,  covered  a  period  of 
about  eight  m(mths.  He  was  also  honorably  discharged  from 
his  third  term  of  enlistment,  after  a  service  of  four  months  and 
twelve  days. 

"  Last  contract  of  service,"  the  term  employed  in  said  resolu- 
tion, must  be  taken  in  its  literal  sense.  Consequently,  soldier's 
last  term  of  service  being  less  than  six  months,  he  is  excluded 
from  the  benefits  of  said  resolution  according  to  the  terms  of  the 
proviso  to  the  second  section  thereof. 

(d)  An  "Appointed  Man  "  Entitled. 

Service — Honorable  discharge — Johit  resolution  of  July  i,  1902 — 
Appointed  man.  (Emma  A.  Andrews,  widow\  15  P.  D.,  215.) 
Claimant's  husband,  the  sailor,  is  shown  to  have  been  an  ''  ap- 
pointed "  man  in  the  Navy,  and  under  the  provisions  of  the 
joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902,  if  otherwise  entitled,  claimant  is 
pensionable  under  the  acts  invoked. 


206  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

(e)  A  Commissioned  Officer  in  Last  Service. 

Desertion  —  Enlisted  man  —  Officer  —  Joint  resolution  of  July  i, 
1902 — Discharge,     (Marie  D.  Muller,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  94.) 

The  joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902,  excludes  from  its  provi- 
sions those  soldiers  who  during  their  last  term  of  service,  served 
as  commissioned  officers  in  the  Army. 

(f)  What  is  "  Faithful  Last  Service?  " 

Service — Honorable  discharge — Pardon — Desertion — Act  June  27, 
1890 — Joint  resolution  of  July  7,  1902.  (Isaac  Marvin,  14  P. 
D.,  352.) 

1.  The  President  having  pardoned  claimant  for  the  offense  of 
which  he  was  convicted  by  a  court-martial  on  condition  that  he 
reenlist  in  the  same  command  and  faithfully  serve  out  such  term 
of  enlistment,  and  claimant  having  fully  complied  with  such 
condition,  the  sentence  of  the  court-martial  was  wiped  out,  in- 
cluding that  part  relating  to  a  dishonorable  discharge;  and  hav- 
ing been  discharged  by  the  order  carrying  out  the  President's 
pardon  previous  to  his  reenlistment,  he  was  not  dishonorably  dis- 
charged by  sentence  of  the  court-martial,  but  honorably  dis- 
charged by  Order  141,  War  Department. 

2.  Nothing  appearing  in  the  record  suggesting  that  claimant's 
second  service  was  not  faithfully  performed,  it  will  be  presumed 
that  it  was,  and  he  accordingly  comes  within  the  provisions  of 
the  joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902,  and  the  action  of  the  Bureau 
rejecting  his  claim  on  the  ground  that  his  service  under  his  last 
enlistment  was  not  faithful  is  reversed. 

Service — Desertion — Joint  resolution  of  July  7,  1902 — Faithful 
service.     (Fanny  Stuart,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  502.) 

In  establishing,  under  the  joint  resolution  of  Juiy  1,  1902,  a 
soldier's  faithful  entire  last  service,  from  which  he  was  dis- 
charged, after  removal  of  a  charge  of  desertion,  under  the  act  of 
July  5,  1884,  such  discharge  is  not  necessarily  evidence  of  the 
faithfulness  of  such  service;  but  when  granted  upon  proof  of 
faithful  service  to  May  1,  1865,  as  provided  in  that  act,  and  dated 
on  the  date  so  charged  with  desertion,  such  a  record  of  desertion 
is  prima  facie  evidence  of  unfaithfulness,  and  a  claimant  must 
produce  evidence  satisfactorily  disproving  such  charge  and  show- 
ing that  such  soldier  did  not,  in  fact,  desert. 

Honorable  discharge — Desertion — Act  of  June  27.,  1890 — Joint  reso- 
lution of  July  7,  1902 — Evidence.  (Solomon  Snell,  15  P.  D., 
437.) 

A  certificate  of  discharge  issued  under  the  act  of  iVugust  14, 
1888,  based  upon  the  fact  that  the  sailor  served  faithfully  for  six 


Y 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  207 

months  prior  to  May  1,  1865,  and  deserted  thereafter,  is  presump- 
tive evidence  that  the  last  six  months  of  his  service  was  not  faith- 
ful within  the  meaning  of  the  proviso  to  the  second  section  of 
the  joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902.  The  burden  is  upon  the 
applicant  in  such  cases  to  show  that  his  service  Avas  faithful,  and 
in  this  case  the  evidence  fails  to  show  that  such  was  the  fact. 
(g)  Declarations  Filed  Prior  to  Act. 
Desertion — Military  age — Estoppel — Joint  resohition  of  July  i, 
1902.     (John  W.  Reser,  15  P.  D.,  8.) 

Soldit^r,  being  under  18  years  of  age,  enlisted  May  23,  1863, 
and  deserted  from  said  contract  on  March  25,  1864.     His  oath 
of  enlistment  set  forth  that  he  was  18  years  of  age,  and  by  that 
he  is  bound  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  February  13,  1862. 
1  The  pending  declarations  were  filed  prior  to  the  passage  of  the 

joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902,  and  for  that  reason  said  resolu- 
tion has  no  application  to  his  claim. 

5.  Deserting  Minors  Pensionable. 

Desertion — Voidable  enlistment — Minors.     (Stephen  F.  Moiithony, 
11  P.  D.,  193.) 

In  1861  the  enlistment  of  a  minor  under  the  age  of  18  years 
was  voidable,  and  a  repudiation  of  such  enlistment  on  the  part  of 
the  minor  by  the  act  of  desertion  would  constitute  no  bar  to  pen- 
sion on  account  of  a  disability  incurred  durng  the  period  of  a 
t^         second  enlistment. 

Desertion — Voidable  enlistment.  (Jasper  M.  Stine,  9  P.  D.,  488.) 
A  contract  of  enlistment  made  by  a  minor  under  16  years  of  age 
is  either  void  or  voidable,  and  if  he  repudiate  the  same  by  desert- 
ing he  can  not  be  held  to  the  performance  of  further  service 
thereunder  (though  he  may  be  punished  for  the  offense  of  deser- 
tion) and  his  reenlistment,  within  the  term  covered  by  his  former 
contract  of  enlistment,  is  not  thereby  invalidated. 

Sermce — Enlistment — Military  age — Void  enlistment.     (Joseph  B. 
Hughes,  12  P.  D.,  137.) 

An  enlistment  of  a  minor  under  the  age  of  18  years  in  1861 
was  voidable,  and  if  he  repudiated  the  contract  of  enlistment 
and  subsequently  reenlisted  and  served  his  term  of  enlistment  for 
ninety  days  or  more  during  the  late  war  of  the  rebellion  and  was 
honorably  discharged  therefrom  the  failure  to  complete  his  first 
term  of  enlistment  is  no  bar  to  his  receiving  a  pension  under  sec- 
tion 2  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

6.  Desertion  During  Civil  War,  No  Bar  When. 

Desertion,  —  Discharge  —  Sections  J^692^  J^GOS^  and  JiBdJ^^  Revised 
Statutes.     (James  McCallan,  9  P.  D.,  255.) 

Desertion  from  the  general  service  during  the  late  war  of  the 


208  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

rebellion  is  no  bar  to  pension  on  account  of  disability  contracted 
in  the  United  States  service  while  serving  under  a  contract  of 
enlistment  entered  into  since  the  close  of  said  war,  from  which 
late  service  sailor  was  honorably  discharged. 

7.  Commissioned  Officer  Dishonorably  Discharged. 

Service  —  Discharge  —  Officer  —  Joint  resolution  of  July  i,  1902. 
(James  H.  Bishop,  15  P.  D.,  276.) 

Prior  service  as  an  officer,  from  Avhich  he  was  not  honorably 
discharged,  is  not  within  the  purview  of  the  second  section  of 
the  joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902,  providing  that  an  enlisted 
man  who  was  honorably  discharged  from  his  last  contract  of 
service,  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  shall  be  held  and  con- 
sidered, upon  certain  proof,  as  honorably  discharged  from  all 
"  similar  coiitracts  of  service  previously  entered  into  by  him  " 
during  said  war. 

ANNOTATION. 

Prior  to  the  passage  of  the  joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1002,  the 
following  was  the  law  as  to  desertion:  ''In  all  claims  for  pen- 
sion under  the  act  of  January  29,  1887  (Mexican  war),  June  27, 
1890  (war  of  the  rebellion)',  and  act  of  July  27,  1892,  as  ex- 
tended by  the  act  of  June  27,  1902  (Indian  wars),  an  honorable 
discharge  from  all  enlistments  for  service  in  the  particular  Avar 
to  which  these  acts  refer  was  a  prerequisite  to  pension.''  The 
joint  resolution  did  not  change  the  above  requirement.  It  sim- 
ply gave  a  certain  class  of  deserters  who  had  two  or  more  serv- 
ices during  the  war  of  the  rebellion  and  who  had  deserted  or 
had  been  dishonorably  discharged  from  a  prior  service  in  said 
war  a  new  pensionable  status,  both  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
and  also  under  the  act  of  July  14,  1862,  or  general  law;  that  is 
to  say,  the  soldier  is  considered  to  have  been  honorably  dis- 
charged from  all  his  services.  (See  case  of  William  P.  McMur- 
try,  15  P.  D.,  63.) 

Section  2  of  said  joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902,  is  as  follows: 

Sec.  2.  That  in  the  administration  of  the  pension  laws  any  enlisted  man 
of  the  Army,  inc-hiding  regulars,  volunteers,  and  militia,  or  any  appointed 
or  enlisted  man  of  the  Navy  or  Marine  Corps,  who  was  honorably  dis- 
charged from  the  last  contract  of  service  entered  into  by  him  during  the 
late  war  of  the  rebellion,  shall  be  held  and  considered  to  have  been  hon 
orably  discharged  from  all  similar  contracts  of  service  previously  entered 
into  by  him  with  the  United  States  during  said  war:  Provided,  That  such 
enlisted  or  appointed  man  served  not  less  than  six  months  under  said  last 
enlistment  or  ai)pointment.  that  his  entire  service  under  said  last  enlist- 
ment or  appointment  was  faithful,  and  that  he  did  not  receive  by  reason 
of  said  last  enlistment  or  appointment  any  bounty  or  gratuity  other  than 
from  the  United  States  in  excess  of  that  to  which  he  would  have  been 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  209 

entitled  if  lie  had  continued  to  serve  faithfully  until  honorahly  discharged 
under  any  contract  of  service  previously  entered  into  by  him,  either  in  the 
Army,  Navy,  or  Marine  Corps,  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion. 
Approved,  July   1,  1902. 

Under  the  general  law  as  it  existed  prior  to  the  passage  of  the 
joint  resolution,  if  the  disability  was  incurred  in  the  service 
under  a  subsequent  enlistment,  while  the  claimant  was  a  deserter 
from  a  prior  enlistment  which  had  not  terminated  when  disa- 
bility was  incurred,  he  was  not  pensionable  for  that  disability 
because  not  in  line  of  duty.  If  said  prior  service  had  terminated 
by  lapse  of  time  prior  to  the  incurrence  of  the  disability,  then  the 
man  was  pensionable.  See  case  of  John  Norton  (9  P.  D.,  382) 
and  Henry  P.,  alias  Patrick  H.,  Burns  (11  P.  D.,  332). 

The  joint  resolution  cited  above,  if  the  soldier  comes  within 
its  proviso,  changes  the  termination  of  the  soldier's  service  from 
which  he  deserted  from  the  date  of  his  original  contract  to  the 
day  before  his  last  enlistment,  and  any  disability  incurred  in  such 
former  service  prior  to  a  charge  of  desertion  from  that  service, 
or  one  incurred  in  line  of  duty  in  such  following  service,  is  pen- 
sionable notwithstanding  such  desertion.  (See  case  of  William 
P.  McMurtry,  15  P.  D.,  63.)  If,  however,  the  soldier's  last 
service  fails  to  fill  the  requirements  of  the  proviso  to  the  second 
section  of  the  joint  resolution  by  reason  of  his  last  ser^ace  being 
less  than  six  months,  or  by  its  being  unfaithful,  or  if  he  received 
more  bounty  (excluding  that  received  from  the  United  States) 
than  he  would  have  received  had  he  not  deserted,  then  he  can  not 
be  benefitted  by  the  joint  resolution. 

In  the  case  of  a  Union  deserter  whose  status  is  benefitted  by  the 
joint  resolution  no  pension  can  commence  prior  to  the  date  of 
filing  a  claim  subsequent  to  July  1,  1902,  the  date  of  the  passage 
of  the  joint  resolution,  on  the  ground  that  the  joint  resolution 
establishes  a  new  pensionable  status.  (See  McMurtry  case,  15 
P.  D.,  63. 

If  the  claim  for  invalid  pension  under  the  general  law,  i.  e., 
sections  4692  and  4693,  Revised  Statutes,  is  based  upon  disability 
incurred  in  the  line  of  duty  during  a  term  of  enlistment  from 
which  the  claimant  was  legally  discharged,  a  desertion  from  a 
subsequent  enlistment  of  itself  is  not  a  bar  to  pension.  (De 
Witt  C.  Nash,  10  P.  D.,  141.) 

The  joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902,  excludes  from  its  provi- 
sions those  soldiers  who  during  their  last  term  of  service  served 
as  commissioned  officers  in  the  Army  (see  15  P.  D.,  94),  or  who 
served  as  such  in  the  service  from  which  they  deserted  or  were 
dishonorably  discharged. 

13070—06 14 


210  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

The  case  of  John  AV.  Keser  (15  P.  D.,  8)  clearly  states  the 
present  practice  as  to  minors  who  deserted  from  any  service 
during  the  war  of  the  rebellion.  It  wiU  be  seen  that  the  enlist- 
ment of  a  minor  under  the  age  of  18  years  prior  to  February  13, 
1862,  was  voidable,  and  a  desertion  therefrom  constituted  no  bar 
to  pension.  After  the  passage  of  the  act  of  February  13,  1862, 
any  minor  enlisting  thereafter  and  giving  his  age  as  18  years 
was  conclusive,  and  such  record  could  not  be  disputed. 

Desertion  from  the  general  service  diu'ing  the  war  of  the  rebel- 
lion is  no  bar  to  pension  for  disability  contracted  in  an  honorable 
service  entered  into  and  performed  since  the  close  of  said  war. 
(See  9  P.  D.,  255.) 

The  act  of  April  26,  1898,  declares  that  any  soldier  who  deserts 
shall,  besides  incurring  the  penalties  now  attaching  to  the  crime 
of  desertion,  forfeit  all  right  to  pension  which  he  might  other- 
wise have  acquired. 

DISLOYALTY. 

References. 

See  Accrued  Pension  :   No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  241). 
See  Declakations  :    No.  5  (14  P.  D.,  42G). 
See  Evidence:   No.  8  (1)  P.  D.,  150). 
See  Fee:  No.  23  )14  P.  D.,  276). 

,  Index. 

1.  As  affecting  claims  under  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

2.  General  law. 

3.  Bars  payment  of  acci-ued  pension.  ^ 

4.  Facts  showing  disloyalty. 

5.  Facts  not  showing  disloyalty. 

6.  Conscription. 

7.  Duress. 

8.  Joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902— Disloyalty. 

9.  Joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902 — Restoration. 

10.  Joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902 — Accrued  pension. 

11.  What  Confederates  entitled. 

1.  As  Affecting  Claims  under  Act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Disloyalty — Section  Ji716^  Revised  Statutes.     (Miles  F.  Fullbright, 
9  P.  D.,  146.) 

It  appearing  from  the  official  military  record  in  the  War 
Department  that  this  appellant  had  served  in  the  Confederate 
army  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  and  there  being  no  evi- 
dence to  rebut  the  presumption  that  said  Confederate  service 
was  voluntary,  it  not  even  being  claimed  or  asserted  by  appellant 
that  it  was  involuntary,  payment  of  pension  to  him  under  the 
provisions  of  section  2,  act  of  June  27,  1890,  is  expressly  pro- 
hibited by  the  provisions  of  section  ^716,  Revised  Statutes.     (See 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  211 

White's  appeal,  7  P.  I).,  312;    Ozborii's  appeal,  ibid.,  317,  and 
Longee^s  appeal,  ibid.,  586.) 

Disloyalty — Section  4716^  Revised  Statutes^  and  act  June  ^7,  1890, 
(George  W.  Gilbert,  9  P.  D.,  279.) 

1.  Claimant  was  in  the  army  of  the  Confederate  States  from 
May,  1861,  to  September,  1868,  and  was  afterwards  in  the  Army 
of  the  United  States  from  October,  1864,  to  July,  1865.  Having 
voluntarily  engaged  in  and  aided  and  abetted  the  rebellion 
against  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  he  is  not  entitled  to 
pension  under  said  act  of  June  27,  1890,  his  title  being  barred  by 
the  provisions  of  section  4716,  Revised  Statutes. 

2.  Said  section  4716,  Revised  Statutes,  has  application  to  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890,  as  well  as  to  that  of  July  14,  1862,  or  any 
other  law,  except  as  its  operation  is  suspended  by  the  act  of 
March  3,  1877,  in  the  case  of  those  disabled  in  a  service  subse- 
quent to  the  disloyal  service,  or  as  exemption  from  its  operation 
is  specifically  provided  for  in  other  laws  granting  pensions  for 
service  in  prior  wars.  No  repeal  of  said  section  4716,  Revised 
Statutes,  or  exemption  from  its  operation  is  provided  in  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890,  and  it  is  construed  in  favi  materia  with 
other  laws  to  be  subject  to  the  inhibition  of  said  section. 

Disloyidty — Section  Jt.716^  Reoised  Statutes — Restoration.  (Bar- 
nabas Sarver,  9  P.  D.,  294.) 

It  clearly  appearing  from  the  official  military  record  in  the 
War  Department  of  this  appellant's  army  service  during  the  war 
of  the  rebellion  that  he  had  voluntarily  served  in  the  Confederate 
army  during  said  war,  and  the  adverse  presumption  created  by 
said  record  being  unrebutted  by  any  sufficient  or  satisfactory 
evidence  that  said  Confederate  service  was  involuntary,  payment 
of  pension  to  him  under  the  provisions  of  section  2,  act  of  June 
27,  1890,  is  expressly  and  positively  prohibited  by  the  provisions 
of  section  4716,  Revised  Statutes  United  States.  (Job  White, 
7  P.  D.,  312;  Sarah  H.  Ozborn,  ibid.,  317;  Augustus  H.  Longee, 
ibid.,  586;  Emma  H.  Seymour,  8  P.  D.,  325;  Anastatio  Capella, 
ibid.,  308;  William  C  Couch,  ibid.,  39;  Aaron  T.  Bush,  ibid., 
254.) 

It  being  shown  by  the  record  and  the  testimony  that  the  in- 
capacity to  earn  a  support  by  manual  labor,  for  which  this  ap- 
pellant was  formerly  pensioned  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
is  a  direct  result  of  disability  contracted  while  confined  as  a 
Confederate  prisoner  of  war  at  Camp  Douglas,  Illinois,  the  effect 
of  restoring  him  to  the  rolls  under  said  act  would  be  to  grant 
him  a  pension  for  disability  contracted  while  serving  in  the  ranks 


212  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

of  the  Confederate  army,  in  open  rebellion  against  and  hostility 
•  to  the  authority  of  the  United  States. 

Disloyalty — Section  Jt.716^  Revised  Statutes.     (Edward  H.  Ligon, 
9  P.  D.,  366.) 

Claimant  at  the  age  of  19  years  voluntarily  left  his  home  in 
Tennessee  and  spent  two  months  in  a  Confederate  camp  in  the 
State  of  Alabama. 

Held :  That  he  voluntarily  aided  and  abetted  the  late  rebellion 
against  the  authority  of  the  United  States  within  the  meaning 
of  section  4716,  Revised  Statutes,  and  is  not  entitled  to  pension 
under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 
Disloyalty — Act  June  27^  1890 — Aliens.  (Henry  Mackrill,  alias 
Mackey,  10  P.  D.,  72.) 

Aliens  who  aided  and  abetted  the  late  rebellion  against  the 
authority  of  the  United  States  are  not  entitled  to  pension  under 
the  act  of  June  27,  1890.  Their  title  is  barred  by  the  provision 
of  section  4716,  Revised  Statutes. 
Disloyalty — Section  1^^116^  Revised  Statutes.,  and  act  June  27^  1890. 
(Calvan  Shinaugh,  10  P.  D.,  210.) 

Section  4716  of  the  Revised  Statutes  is  applicable  to  pension 
claims  filed  under  section  2  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  and  the 
decision  in  the  case  of  G.  W.  Gilbert  (9  P.  D.,  279),  under  the 
advice  of  the  Assistant  Attorney-General,  is  adhered  to. 
Disloyalty — Disability — Restoration.  (Nathan  Richardson,  15  P. 
D,76.) 

The  fact  that  an  applicant's  .inability  to  earn  a  support  by 
manual  labor  is  due  in  whole  or  in  part  to  disease  contracted 
while  serving  in  the  Confederate  army  is  not  a  valid  ground  for 
denying  him  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 
Disability — Confederate  service — Act  of  J}(ne  27.,  1890.  (James 
E.  Shehan,  15  P.  D.,  369.) 

The  fact  than  an  applicant's  inability  to  earn  a  support  by 
manual  labor  is  due  in  whole  or  in  part  to  disease  contracted 
while  serving  in  the  Confederate  army  is  not  a  valid  ground  for 
denying  him  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890.  (See 
Nathan  Richardson,  15  P.  D.,  76.) 

2.  General  Law. 

Disloyalty — Section  1^716^  Revised  Statutes.     (Peter  Walther,  10  P. 
D.,  125.) 

Prisoner  of  War  Records  show  that  pensioner  was  paroled  for 
services  in  the  engineer  workshops  itt  Savannah,  Ga.,  late  in 
October,  1864,  and  continued  to  perform  labor  in  said  shops  until 
his  final  parole,  November  18,  1864,  thus  voluntarily  aiding  and 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  213 

abetting  the  rebellion  against  the  authority  of  the  United  States. 
Under  the  provisions  of  section  4716,  Kevised  Statutes,  he  is  not 
entitled  to  pension,  and  the  dropping  of  his  name  from  the  rolls 
was  proper. 
Disloyalty — Section  1^716^  Revised  Statutes — Evidence.  (Mary  J. 
Dupra,  widow,  10  P.  D.,  86.) 

The  record  shows  that  the  soldier  enlisted  in  the,  rebel  army 
while  a  prisoner  of  war  at  Anderson\  ille,  and  continued  therein 
until  captured  by  Union  forces  at  Egypt  Station,  Miss.,  and  that 
he  was  subsequently  confined,  with  other  rebel  prisoners,  at  Alton, 
111.,  until  March  IT,  1865,  when  he  enlisted  in  the  Fifth  United 
States  Volunteers,  which  was  made  up  of  recruits  from  rebel 
prisoners. 

Held:  That  the  record  not  only  fails  to  sustain  the  appellant's 
contention  that  his  enlistment  in  the  rebel  army  was  involuntary 
and  an  expedient  to  enable  him  to  return  to  the  Union  side,  but 
is  inconsistent  with  it,  and  the  widow's  pension  properly  termi- 
nated. 

3.  Bars  Payment  of  Accrued  Pension. 

See  No.  10,  this  chapter. 

Also  see  Accrued  Pension  :  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  241). 

4.  Facts  Showing  Disloyalty. 

Disloyalty — Section  1^716  of  the  Remsed  Statutes.  (Charles  F.  M. 
Guernsey,  11  P.  D.,  64.) 

Claimant,  while  a  prisoner  of  war  at  Andersonville,  Ga.,  hav- 
ing enlisted  in  the  Confederate  service  in  February,  1865,  he  is 
barred  from  pension  by  reason  of  the  provisions  of  section  4716 
of  the  Revised  Statutes,  notwithstanding  his  allegation  (uncor- 
roborated) that  his  enlistment  was  merely  a  subterfuge  to  enable 
him  to  escape  to  the  Union  lines,  which  he  did  in  April,  1865,  it 
being  held  that  said  enlistment  and  service  was  voluntary.  (Milo 
B.  Ousterhout,  7  P.  D.,  270.) 

5.  Facts  Not  Showing  Disloyalty. 

Disloyalty — Section  1^716 — Evidence.  (John  H.  Kimball,  IIP.  D., 
124.) 

The  record  shows  claimant  as  "  transferred  "  to  Colonel  O'Neill 
from  Andersonville,  Ga,,  a  rebel  recruiting  officer.  There  is  no 
record  or  evidence  in  the  case  of  enlistment  in  the  Confederate 
States  army  or  of  any  act  on  claimant's  part  of  aiding  or  abet- 
ting the  rebellion. 

Held:  The  action  of  dropping  was  unlawful. 

One  has  an  undoubted  right  to  escape  the  rigors  of  prison  life 
in  any  way  that  presents  itself,  as  well  outside  as  inside  the 


214  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

prison,  if  in  so  doing  he  does  not  aid  or  abet  the  enemy.  The 
opinion  in  the  case  of  Milo  Ousterhont  (7  P.  D.,  270).  is  not  in 
conflict  with  snch  doctrine. 

Disloyalty — Evidence — Fresumftions — Section  1^1116^  Revised  Stat- 
utes.    (John  \\.  Kimball,  11  P.  1).,  13(i.) 

Volnnteering  to  build  larger  stockades  for  the  better  accommo- 
dation of  Union  ])risoners  was  not  volunteering  to  aid  the  rebel- 
lion. 

The  record  showing  the  transfer  of  a  Union  prisoner  to  Colonel 
O'Neill,  rebel  recruiting  officer,  will  not  raise  a  presumption  of 
an  enlistment  in  the  Confedei-ate  ai-my,  but  is  sufficient  to  raise 
a  presumption  of  aiding  and  abetting»the  rebellion,  but  the  proof 
in  this  case  showing  that  claimant  neither  enlisted  in  the  Con- 
federate army  nor  performed  service  of  any  kind  in  aid  of* such 
rebellion,  such  presumjition  of  aiding  and  abetting  the  rebellion 
against  the  authority  of  the  United  States  is  rebutted,  and  the 
decision  in  this  case  of  October  10,  1900,  is  not  in  conflict  with 
the  cases  of  Milo  Ousterhout  (7  P.  I).,  270),  Eussel  S.  Cole  (4 
P.  D.,  141),  John  S.  McCoy  (5  P.  D.,  369),  William  Hedgspeth 
(1  P.  D.,  245),  and  Charles  F.  M.  Guernsey  (11  P.  D.,  64). 

Disloyalty — Conscription — Special  examination.  (Lewis  Kiddle, 
11  P.  D.,  252.) 

The  testimony  filed  by  the  claimant  tending  to  show  that  he 
did  not  voluntarily  engage  in  or  aid  or  abet  the  late  rebellion, 
special  examination  is  directed  in  order  to  satisfactorily  and  fully 
determine  the  facts,  the  records  of  the  War  Department  showing 
enlistment  in  the  Confederate  service  and  desertion  two  months, 
probably,  later. 

Disloyalty — Dnress — Line  of  duty — Section  Jf716^  Revised  Statutes. 
(Lorenzo  Pruett,  11  P.  D.,  290.) 

A  prisoner  of  war  who,  while  under  actual  duress  and  in  well- 
grounded  fear  of  his  life,  is  forced  by  his  captors  to  engage  in 
active  hostile  operations  against  his  country,  and  is  disabled 
while  so  engaged,  without  any  free  will  on  his  part  in  such  dis- 
loyal participation,  is  pensionable  on  account  of  such  disability. 

Disloyalty — Section  4716^  Revised  Statutes — Evidence — Record. 
(James  H.  Rainey,  11  P.  D.,  327.) 

The  record  of  the  War  Department  showing  that  claimant, 
w^hile  a  prisoner  of  war  in  Andersonville.  Ga.,  in  February,  1865, 
was  "  transferred  to  Colonel  O'Neill,  rebel  recruiting  officer,"  in 
the  absence  of  proof  showing  enlistment  in  the  rebel  army  or 
performance  of  service  therein,  does  not  establish  the  fact  that 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  215 

he  aided  or  abetted  the  late  rebellion  against  the  authority  of  the 
United  States. 

6.  Conscription. 

Disloyalty — Section  1^716^  Revised  Statutes — Evidence — Conscrip- 
tion.    (William  Traelove,  12  P.  D.,  45.) 

The  claimant  has  a  record  of  service  in  the  Confederate  army 
extending  over  several  months.  He  was  afterwards  a  prisoner 
of  war  at  Rock  Island,  111.,  where  he  enlisted  in  the  Union  Army. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  record  to  show  that  the  service  in  the 
Confederate  army  was  not  voluntary,  and  the  presumption  that 
it  was  so  is  not  overcome  by  the  evidence  filed  by  the  claimant 
showing  that  he  was  a  Union  man  in  sentiment  and  refused  to 
enter  the  Confederate  service  until  he  was  conscripted.  Rejec- 
tion of  the  claim  was  proper. 

7.  Duress. 

Disloyalty — Duress — Desertion — Section  Jf.716^  Revised  Statutes. 
(John  W.  Payne,  12  P.  D.,  12.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case  shows  that  appellant  and  others,  who 
were  in  hiding  to  avoid  conscription  in  the  rebel  army,  were 
Union  men;  that  in  the  spring  of  186eS  one  Captain  Love,  of  the 
Confederate  States  army,  came  into  that  community  with  some 
men  and  threatened  to  burn  the  homes  of  Union  families  unless 
those  men  came  in  and  went  into  the  Confederate  army;  that  to 
escape  was  then  impossible,  and  they  all  came  in  and  joined  said 
Love's  command,  but  were  never  sworn  into  the  Confederate 
service  nor  did  military  duty;  that  appellant  left  said  company 
within  six  weeks  thereafter,  and  before  its  organization  was  com- 
pleted, and  joined  the  Union  Army,  and  served  therein  until 
1805. 

Held :  That  these  facts  do  not  establish  a  voluntary  aiding  and 
abetting  'of  the  rebellion  against  the  authority  of  the  United 
States  within  the  meaning  of  section  47l(>  of  the  Revised 
Statutes. 

8.  Joint  Resolution  of  July  1,  1902— Disloyalty. 

hisloyalty — Section  Jf.716  of  the  Revised  Statutes  and  joint  resolv- 
tion  of  July  U  1002.     (James  J.  AA^ule,  13  P.  D.,  128.) 

It  appearing  from  the  evidence  in  this  case  that  this  appel- 
lant rendered  voluntary  military  service  in  the  Confederate  army 
during  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  and  that  he  enlisted  in  the  mili- 
tary service  of  the  United  States  after  the  1st  day  of  January, 
1865,  he  is  excluded  from  the  benefits  of  the  joint  resolution  of 
Congress  approved  July  1,  1902,  and  the  payment  of  pension  to 


216  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

him  is  expressly  prohibited  by  the  provisions  of  section  4716  of 
the  Revised  Statutes. 

9.  Joint  Resolution  of  July  1,  1902 — Restoration. 

Disloyalty — Joint  resolution  of  July  1^1902 — Section  .1^7 16 ^Revised 
■    Statutes — Construction  of  statutes — Retrospectire  laws.     (John 
Enfinger,  13  P.  D.,  248.)' 

The  claimant  was  granted  a  pension  under  the  act  of  Jime 
27,  1890,  on  December  2,  1892,  which  he  drew  until  March  30, 
1896,  when  his  name  was  dropped  from  the  rolls  on  the  ground 
of  disloyalty;  on  July  31,  1902,  he  filed  a  claim  for  restoration 
to  the  rolls  under  said  act  and  was  granted  a  pension  to  date 
from  the  filing  of  said  claim;  appeal  was  filed  in  which  it  is 
contended  that  he  should  have  been  granted  a  pension  from  the 
date  he  was  dropped  from  the  rolls  under  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  setting  up  the  joint  resolution  approved  July  1,  1902. 

Held:  That  the  joint  resolution  of  July  1,  1902,  is  not  a 
granting  act,  but  merely  removes  the  bar  to  payment  of  money 
on  account  of  pension  raised  by  section  4716,  Revised  Statutes, 
and  that  upon  the  removal  of  said  bar  claimant  had  title  to 
restoration  to  the  rolls  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  June 
27,  1890;  there  is  no  authority 'of  law  in  this  case  for  com- 
mencing pension  from  any  other  date  than  from  the  date  of 
filing  the  declaration  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Disloyalty — Joint  resolntion  of  July  1.^1902 — Section  Jf7 16.,  Revised 
Statutes — Construction  of  statutes — Retrospective  laws.  (Mary 
W.  Craig,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  259.) 

The  first  section  of  the  joint  resolution  of  Congress  approved 
July  1,  1902,  considered  in  its  relation  to  the  second  and  third 
sections  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  and  section  4716,  Revised 
Statutes. 

Held:  That  the  first  section  of  said  joint  resolution  has  no 
effect,  either  retrospectively  or  prospectively,  to  change,  alter, 
or  modify  the  conditions  of  pensionable  title  prescribed  by  the 
second  and  third  sections  of  said  act;  it  removed  only  the  pro- 
hibition of  payment  contained  in  section  4716,  Revised  Statutes, 
title  being  still  based  on  and  determinable  imder  said  sections. 
The  act  of  June  27,  1890,  provided  for  the  date  of  commence- 
ment of  pension  thereunder;  the  joint  resolution  did  not  alter 
such  provision  in  any  particular,  and  a  claimant  for  pension 
under  said  act,  if  entitled,  should  be  paid  from  the  date  pro- 
vided by  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  217 

10.  Joint  Resolution  of  July  1,  1902 — Accrued  Pension. 

Dhloyalty — Evidence — Section  Ji.7 16.  (James  H.  Kelley,  14  P.  D., 
104.) 

The  evidence  fails  to  rebut  the  presumption,  from  tlie  records 
of  the  War  Department,  of  this  soldier's  voluntary  aiding  and 
abetting  the  rebellion. 

He  having  died  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  joint  resolution  of 
July  1,  1902,  removing  the  bar  of  section  4710  as  applied  to  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890,  said  joint  resolution  has  no  effect  upon  his 
claim  under  said  act  and  does  not  remove  said  bar  existing  at 
the  time  of  his  death  so  as  to  entitle  his  widow  to  accrued  pen- 
sion under  said  claim. 

Disloyalty — Joint  resolution  of  July  1^1902 — Section 4716 ^Revised 
^tututes — Accrued  pension.  (Rebecca  Medlock,  widow,  14  P.  D., 
422.) 

Where  a  soldier  died  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  joint  reso- 
lution of  July  1,  1902,  removing  bar  to  payment  under  section 
4716,  Revised  Statutes,  as  applied  to  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
said  resolution  affords  no  remedy  to  those  claiming  under  him 
in  all  cases  where  his  right  to  pension  had  not  been  admitted, 
said  suppositive  personal  right  to  pension  dying  with  him. 

But  where  a  soldier's  claim  had  been  admitted  and  his  right 
to  pension,  so  far  as  section  4716,  Revised  Statutes,  is  concerned, 
had  never  been  questioned  in  his  lifetiine,  his  widow  may  not  be 
refused  payment  of  his  accrued  pension  subsequent  to  the  pas- 
sage of  said  joint  resolution  upon  the  ground  that  he  had  ren- 
dered voluntary  service  to  the  Confederacy,  a  fact  discovere^l 
after  soldier's  death. 

11.  What  Confederates  Entitled. 

Disloyalty — Act  of  June  27^  1890 — Joint  Resolution  of  July  7, 
1902.     (Kerilla  Hedgspeth,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  349). 

The  soldier  served  more  than  ninety  days  during  the  war  of  the 
rebellion  and  was  honorably  discharged;  his  widow  is  entitled 
to  pension  under  said  act  if  the  other  essentials  of  title  are 
present. 
Disloyalty — Section  1^716  of  the  Revised  Statutes — Joint  resolu- 
tion of  July  7,  1902 — Restoration.  (James  M.  Lawrence,  13  P. 
D.,  395.) 

The  exception  to  the  first  section  of  the  joint  resolution  of 
July  1,  1902,  wherein  it  is  stated  that  the  benefits  of  the  resolu- 
tion shall  not  apply  to  those  (soldiers)  who  had  a  prior  Confed- 
erate service,  and  enlisted  in  the  military  service  of  the  United 


218  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

States  after  January  1,  1865,  applies  to  all  members  of  the  First, 
Second,  Third,  Fourth,  Fifth,  and  Sixth  regiments  U.  8.  Infan- 
try, as  well  as  to  all  other  soldiers  who  had  a  Confederate  service. 
Disloyalty — Service — Joint  resolution  of  July  i,  1902.  (Hart- 
well  B.  Whittle,  15  P.  D.,  337.) 

The  provisions  of  the  first  section  of  the  joint  resolution  of 
July  1,  1902,  do  not  apply  to  persons  who  voluntarily  enlisted 
in  the  Confederate  army,  after  having  been  in  the  military 
service  of  the  United  States,  and  whose  last  service  was  in  aid 
of  the  rebellion. 

ANNOTATION. 

The  following  are  the  acts  and  joint  resolutions  of  the  Con- 
gress, and  rulings  and  orders  of  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions, 
relative  to  disloyalty  as  affecting  title  to  pension : 

Sec.  471G.  No  money  on  account  of  pension  shall  be  paid  to  any  person, 
or  to  the  widow,  children,  or  heirs  of.  any  deceased  i)erson,  who  in  any 
manner  voluntarily  engaged  in,  or  aided  or  al)etted,  the  late  rebellion 
against  the  authority  of  the  United  States. 

An  Act  To  amend  an  act  entitled  "An  act  amending  the  pension  law  so  as  to  remove 
the  disability  of  those  who,  having  participated  in  the  rebellion,  have  since  its 
termination  enlisted  in  the  Army  of  the  United  States,  and  become  disabled," 
approved  March  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-seven. 

Be  it  enacted  hy  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  asseml)1ed.  That  the  act  entitled  "An  act 
amending  the  pension  law  so  as  to  remove  the  disability  of  those  who,  hav- 
ing participated  in  the  rebellion,  have  since  its  termination  enlisted  in  the 
Army  of  the  United  States,  and  become  disabled,"  approved  March  third, 
eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-seven,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby,  amended 
so  as  to  read  as  follows : 

"  That  the  law  prohibiting  the  payment  of  any  money  on  account  of 
pensions  to  any  person,  or  to  the  widow,  children,  or  heirs  of  any  deceased 
person  who,  in  any  manner,  engaged  in  or  aided  or  abetted  the  late  rebel- 
lion against  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  not  be  construed  to 
apply  to  such  persons  as  afterward  voluntarily  enlisted  in  either  the  Xavy 
or  Army  of  the  United  States,  and  who,  while  in  such  service,  incurred  dis- 
ability from  a  wound  or  injury  received  or  disease  contracted  in  the  line 
of  duty." 

Approved,  August  1,  1892. 

Joint  Resolution  Construing  the  act  approved  June  twenty-seventh,  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  ninety,  entitled  "An  act  granting  pensions  to  soldiers  and  sailors  who 
are  incapacitated  for  the  performance  of  manual  labor,  and  providing  for  pen- 
sions to  widows,  minor  children,  and  dependent  parents,  and  for  other  purposes." 

Resolved  hy  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assemhled,  That  the  act  approved  .Tune 
twenty-seventh,  eighteen  hundred  and  ninety,  entitled  "An  act  granting 
pensions  to  soldiers  and  sailors  who  are  incapacitated  for  the  performance 
of  manual  lal)or,  and  providing  for  pensions  to  widows,  minor  children,  and 
dependent  parents,"  is  construed  and  held  to  include  all  persons  and  the 
widows  and  minor  children  of  allMeceased  persons,  subject  to  the  limita- 
tions of  said  act,  who  served  for  ninety  days  in  the  military  or  naval  serv- 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  219 

ice  of  the  Ignited  States  during  the  late  war  of  the  rebellion,  and  who  have 
been  honorably  discharged  therefrom,  and  section  forty-seven  hundred  and 
sixteen,  Revised  Statutes  United  States,  is  amended  accordingly :  Pro- 
vided, hoicever.  That  the  foregoing  shall  not  apply  to  those  who  served  in 
the  First,  Second,  Third,  Fourth.  Fifth,  and  Sixth  regiments  United  States 
Volunteer  Infantry  who  had  a  prior  service  in  the  Confederate  army  or 
navy  and  who  enlisted  in  said  regiments  while  confined  as  prisoners  of 
war  under  a  stipulation  that  they  were  not  to  be  pensionable  under  the 
laws  of  the  United  States,  nor  to  those  who,  having  had  such  prior  service, 
enlisted  in  the  military  or  naval  service  of  the  United  States  after  the  first 
day  of  January,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-five. 
Approved,  July  1.  1902. 

In  the  fifth  section  of  the  act  of  March  9,  1878,  providing  a 
service  pension  for  soldiers  and  saik^rs  of  the  war  of  1812  and 
their  widows,  it  is  provided : 

And  section  forty-seven  hundred  and  sixteen.  Revised  Statutes  of  the 
United  States,  shall  not  apply  to  the  persons  provided  for  by  this  act. 

Section  5  of  the  act  of  January  29,  1887,  granting  a  pension 
to  soldiers  and  sailors  of  the  Mexican  war,  provides — 

That  section  forty-seven  hundred  and  sixteen  of  the  Revised  Statutes 
is  hereby  repealed,  so  far  as  the  same  relates  to  this  act  or  to  pensioners 
under  this  act. 

And  section  6  of  the  act  of  July  27,  1892,  granting  a  pension 
to  survivors  of  certain  Indian  wars,  provides — 

That  section  forty-seven  hundred  and  sixteen  of  the  Revised  Statutes 
is  hereby  repealed,  so  far  as  the  same  relates  to  this  act  or  to  pensioners 
under  this  act. 

The  act  of  April  18,  1900,  also  provides  that  section  4716  of 
the  Revised  Statutes — 

be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  repealed,  so  far  as  the  same  may  be  applicable 
to  the  claims  to  pension  of  dependent  parents  of  soldiers,  sailors,  and 
marines  who  served  in  the  Army  or  Navy  of  the  United  States  during  the 
war  with  Spain. 

It  is  manifest  that  the  sole  object  and  purpose  of  all  of  these 
statutory  provisions,  although  expressed  in  different  language, 
was  the  same ;  namely,  to  relieve  the  various  pensions  and  the  sev- 
eral classes  of  pensioners  to  which  they  respectively  relate  from  the 
prohibition  contained  in  section  4716  of  the  Revised  Statutes, 
and  to  enable  such  persons  to  be  paid  the  pension  to  which  they 
might  be  shown  to  be  entitled  under  the  conditions  and  limita- 
tions of  the  several  acts  to  which  said  provisions  apply,  irre- 
spective of  the  bar  of  section  4716  of  the  Revised  Statutes. 

Department  of  the  Interior, 

Bureau  of  Pensions, 
Waf^hiuf/ton,  D.  (7.,  Fehruanj  17,  1903. 
Chiefs  of  Division  : 

Claims  for  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  of.  members  of  the 
six  ref?iments  of  infantry  and  of  the  one  company  of  cavalry,  known  as 
the  United  States  Volunteers,  composed  in  greater  part  of  men  who  had 


220  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

served  in  the  Confederate  States  army,  and  been  captured  and  enrolled 
into  these  orj;anizations  from  the  Union  prisons,  will  be  treated  mider  the 
first  section  of  the  joint  resolution  of  July  1.  ]1)()2,  the  same  as  the  claims 
of  others  who  had  served  in  the  rebel  army  and  afterwards  joined  the 
Union  forces :  it  is  held  that  it  is  not  the  intent  of  Congress  to  grant 
pension  for  disabilities  incurred  while  in  arms  against  the  Union,  under 
any  law. 

E.  F.  Ware,  Commissioner. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  first  section  of  the  joint  resolution 
of  eJnly  1,  1902,  was  intended  to  apply  to  those  who  entered  the 
military  service  of  the  United  States  after  a  prior  service  in  the 
army  or  navy  of  the  Confederate  States,  excepting  only  those  who 
enlisted  in  certain  regiments  under  a  stipulation  that  they  were 
not  to  be  pensionable,  and  those  who  enlisted  after  January  1, 
1865.  (See  the  Craig  case,  13  P.  D.,  259 ;  and  the  Whittle  case, 
15P.  D.,  337.) 

The  case  of  James  M.  Lawrence,  of  Company  I,  Sixth  Regiment 
United  States  Volunteer  Infantry  (see  13  P.  I).,  395),  is  the 
only  case  so  far  decided  where  the  soldier  served  in  one  of  the 
six  regiments  referred  to  in  the  first  proviso  of  the  joint  resolu- 
tion and  whose  claim  was  rejected  on  the  ground  that  he  was  ex- 
cluded from  the  be^nefits  of  said  joint  resolution  by  one  of  its 
provisos — to  wit,  that  he  enlisted  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States  after  January  1,  1865.  No  decision,  as  I  am  aware,  has 
ever  been  rendered  in  the  case  of  a  member  of  any  of  the  six  des- 
ignated regiments  wdio  enlisted  prior  to  January  1,  1865,  and 
whose  case  was  rejected  on  the  ground  that  he  enlisted  under  a 
"  stipulation  that  he  was  not  to  be  pensionable." 

The  only  method  of  ascertaining  whether  any  member  of  the 
•  six  regiments  referred  to  in  the  first  proviso  of  the  joint  resolu- 
tion of  July  1,  1902,  enlisted  therein  "  under  a  stipulation  that 
he  was  not  to  be  pensionable,"  or  that  he  enlisted  "  after  Jan- 
uary 1,  1865,"  is  from  that  member's  military  history  on  file  at 
the  War  Department.  If  such  record  shows  that  said  soldier 
enlisted  *'  under  a  stipulation  that  he  w^as  not  to  be  pensionable," 
or  if  it  shows  date  of  enlistment  to  have  been  after  January  1, 
1865,  in  either  case  the  bar  of  section  4716  has  not  been  removed 
by  the  joint  resolution,  and  the  claim  or  claims  must  be  rejected. 

Other  important  points  as  to  disloyalty  cases  have  been  set- 
tled by  the  late  decisions  of  the  honorable  Secretary.  One  of 
these  is  that  the  first  section  of  the  joint  resolution  of  July  1, 
1902,  is  retroactive.  (See  case  of  John  Enfinger,  13  P.  D.,  248, 
and  the  Taylor  case,  14  P.  D.,  276.)  That  is  to  say,  if  any  sol- 
dier from  whose  record  the  bar  of  section  4716  is  removed  by  the 
joint  resolution  was  a  pensioner  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 


'PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  221 

and  his  name  before  the  passage  of  the  joint  resolution  was 
dropped  from  the  rolls  on  account  of  his  disloyalty,  he  can,  if 
living,  have  his  name  restored  to  the  rolls  from  the  date  of  drop- 
ping; or  if  he  dies  after  the  passage  of  the  joint  resolution  his 
widow,  or  in  case  of  her  death,  or  in  case  she  married  the  soldier 
after  June  27,  1890,  his  children,  under  the  age  of  16  years  when 
they  apply,  can  have  soldier's  name  restored  to  the  rolls  from 
the  date  of  dropping  and  receive  the  accrued  pension  to  date  of 
the  soldier's  death. 

Another  point  is,  that  in  any  case  where  any  such  soldier  died 
before  the  passage  of  the  joint  resolution,  his  right  to  pension  or 
restoration  to  the  rolls  died  with  him,  and  there  is  no  accrued 
pension  for  his  widow  or  children,  except  where  during  his  life- 
time the  bar  of  section  4716  was  never  .set  up  against  him  and  the 
fact  of  his  former  disloyalty  w^as  not  discovered  until  after  his 
death.  The  title  of  the  widow  of  any  such  soldier  to  a  widow's 
pension  or  to  restoration  from  date  of  dropping,  if  once  on  the 
rolls,  or  from  date  of  filing  her  original  claim,  in  case  of  former 
rejection,  is  restored  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  by  the  joint 
resolution  whether  the  soldier  died  before  or  after  the  passage 
of  the  joint  resolution.  In  case  of  no  widow,  or  if  she  is  not 
pensionable  under  act  of  June  27,  1890,  the  soldier's  children, 
under  K)  3^ears  of  age  when  they  apply,  have  title  to  a  pension 
under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

DIFFICULTY  AND  TROUBLE. 

See  Appeals  :  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  519). 

See  Fee:  Nos.  8,  22  (10  P.  D.,  147;  14  P.  D.,  199). 

DISEASE  OF  HEAET. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  89). 

See  Pathological  Sequence  :  Nos.  .5,  20  (12  P.  D.,  491 ;  11  P.  D.,  462). 

See  Prior  Soundness:  No.  1  (15  P.  D.,  1). 

DISBANDMENT. 

See  Service:  No.  21  (12  P.  D.,  407). 

DISMISSED. 

See  Appeals:  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  410). 

DISABILITY. 

References. 

See  Age:  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  179)  ;  No.  2  (11  P.  D..  240). 
See  Aid  and  Attendance:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  307,  349,  423,  481)  ;  >{o.  4 
(11  P.  D.,  503). 


222  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  • 

See  Amputation  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  70;  11  P.  D.,  1 ;  14  P.  D.,  2(j4)  ;  No. 

2  (15  P.  D.,  402). 
See  Anterebellion  Service:  No.  1  (9  P.  D..  220). 
See  Appeals:  No.  8  (10  P.  D.,  250)  ;  No.  (>  (13  P.  D.,  170). 
See  Attorneys  :  No.  8  (10  P.  D.,  4G0). 
See  Death  Cause:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  492)  ;  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  266)  ;  No.  4 

(10  P.  D.,  453)  ;  No.  5  (lO^P.  D.,  202  ;  11  P.  D.,  62,  106,  388)  ;  No.  6 

(10  P.  D.,  90;  14  P.  D.,  300)  ;  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  89)  ;  No.  8  (12  P.  D.. 

354)  ;  No.  11   (12  P.  D.,  342)  ;  No.  12  (13  P.  D.,  372)  ;  No.  13  (13 

P.  D.,  313). 
See  Declarations  :  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  223). 
See  Disloyalty:  No.  1  (15  P.  D.,  76). 

See  Helpless  Minor  :  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  22,  224,  368 ;  12  P.  D.,  365,  527). 
See  Increase:  Nos.  1,  3,  4,  10  (9  P.  D.,  54,  401;  12  P.  D.,  59,  87,  92; 

11  P.  D.,  51). 
See  Origin  :  Nos.  1,  2,  3  (11  P.  D.,  329 ;  12  P.  D.,  298 ;  13  P.  D.,  1). 
See  Pathological    Sequence:  Nos.    14,    20    (13    P.    D.,    307;  11    P. 

D.,  307). 
See  Practice:  Nos.  1,  11,  15,  18  (9  P.  D.,  399;  10  P.  D.,  12;  11  P.  D., 

455;  12  P.  D.,  254). 
See  Rate  and  Rating:  Nos.  2,  3,  6,  10  (9  P.  D.,  370,  413;  10  P.  D., 

176,  256,  261). 
SeeRERATiNG:  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  299). 

Index. 

1.  Aggravation  and  recurrence  of. 

2.  Evidence — Sufficiency  of. 

3.  Act  of  June  27,  1890. 

4.  Age  not  ])er  se  a  disability. 

5.  Cause  of  disability. 

6.  Degree  of  disability,  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

7.  Aid  and  attendance. 

8.  Support. 

9.  Amputation. 

10.  Permanent  and  specific— Rating. 

11.  Soldier  Mexican  war — Disability. 

1.  Aggravation  and  Recurrence  of. 

Disability — Origirb — Aggravation  and  recurrence  of  old  disahility. 
(Andrew  J.  Fleener,  9  P.  D.,  133.) 

Certificate  of  disability  for  discharge,  corroborated  by  oral 
testimony,  shows  that  the  alleged  disability — bronchitis — existed 
prior  to  enlistment.  It  is  not  shown  that  claimant  had  recov- 
ered therefrom,  and  the  recurrence  of  the  same  after  an  attack 
of  measles  in  service  is  not  such  aggravation  as  would  make 
the  disability  pensionable. 

2.  Evidence — Sufficiency  of. 

Disability — Emdence,  sufficiency  of.     (Charles  Engleman,  9  P.  D., 
47). 

When  the  evidence  presented  by  a  claimant  is  sufficient  to  sat- 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  223 

isfy  the  iiiiiid  of  a  candid  and  impartial  person  that  a  pen- 
sionable disability  from  some  obscure  cause*  exists,  although  no 
physical  signs  of  it  can  be  discovered  by  the  examining  surgeons, 
pension  should  be  allowed  at  a  rate  proportionate  to  the  degree 
of  disability  proved. 

Disahility — Rating — Medical  examinations.     (Warren  Thompson, 
10  P.  D.,  276.) 

The  degree  of  inability  to  perform  manual  labor  is  a  medical 
question  only  so  far  as  a  claimant's  physical  and  mental  condi- 
tion is  shown  by  medical  evidence.  And  there  is  no  better  evi- 
dence as  to  his  physical  ability  or  inability  than  an  accurate 
description  of  normal  and  abnormal  conditions  disclosed  by  a 
careful  medical  examination  made  by  experienced  practitioners. 

3.  Act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Disahility— Rate— Act  June  27,  1890.     (Francis  Frank,  9  P.  D., 
68.) 

A  claimant  who  has  attained  the  age  of  65  years  shall  be 
deemed  entitled  to  at  least  the  minimum  rate  of  pension  unless 
the  evidence  discloses  an  unusual  vigor  and  ability  for  the  per- 
formance of  manual  labor  in  one  of  that  age. 

Disahility— Act  of  June  27,  1890.     (William  Featherly,  9  P.  D., 
106.) 

The  claimant  is  by  trade  a  stone  mason.  The  condition  of 
his  hand  being  such  as  to  prevent  his  working  at  his  trade,  and 
being  too  old  to  learn  another,  it  is  held  that  he  has  a  pension- 
able status  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890.  ReaiRrming  depart- 
mental decision  in  the  case  of  Charles  Stone  (8  P.  D.,  477). 

Disahility— Act  June  27,  1890— Rate.     (Charles  C.   Wheaton,  9 
P.  D.,  156.) 

It  was  not  intended  by  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  to  grant  pen- 
sions for  such  degrees  of  disability  as  do  not  materially  impair 
the  ability  to  earn  a  support  by  manual  labor;  and  total  deaf- 
ness of  one  ear  and  slight  in  the  other  is  not  such  a  disability 
as  impairs  claimant's  ability  to  earn  such  support. 

Disahility— Act  June  27, 1890— Practice.     (John  W.  Hird,  9  P.  D., 
263.) 

The  evidence,  the  certificates  of  examination,  and  the  concur- 
rent opinion  of  the  medical  referee  show  the  existence  of  a  degree 
of  disability  warranting  a  rate  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 
Under  the  present  rules  as  to  rating  the  action  of  rejection  is 
reversed,  notwithstanding  that  it  was  in  accordance  with  the 
practice  at  the  time  the  claim  was  adjudicated. 

OF   THE 

VNIVERSITY 


224  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

4.  Age  Not  per  se  a  Disability. 

Disability— Act  June  ^7,  1890— Age.  (J.  Louis  Will,  11  P.  D!, 
179.) 

The  fact  that  a  claimant  has  attained  the  age  of  65  years  does 
not  entitle  him  to  pension,  per  se,  under  section  2  of  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  regardless  as  to  what  his  mental  or  physical  con- 
dition may  be,  and  such  was  not  the  view  expressed  in  the  case 
*of  Francis  Frank  (9  P.  D.,  68)  ;  but  the  evidence  in  this  case 
disclosing  the  fact  that  claimant  is  by  trade  a  pattern  maker, 
and  that  by  reason  of  age,  disease  of  heart,  limitation  of  motion 
in  knee  and  shoulder,  enlarged  veins  of  leg,  and  stiffness  and 
limitation  and  atrophy  of  hand  he  is  unable  to  follow  said  occu- 
pation, the  action  rejecting  his  claim  was  error,  and  is  reversed. 
(Charles  Stone,  8  P.  D.,  477,  and  William  Featherly,  9  P.  D., 
106.) 

5.  Cause  of  Disability. 

Disahality — Pathological  sequence — Myopia.  (Adolph  Becker,  11 
P.  D.,  185.) 

The  certificate  of  medical  examination,  made  under  appellant's 
claim  for  increase,  shows  that  his  loss  of  vision  in  both  eyes  is 
due  to  intraocular  changes  caused  by  a  high  degree  of  m3^opia, 
which  can  not  be  accepted  as  due  to  his  military  service. 

Action  affirmed. 

6.  Degree  of  Disability,  Act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Disability— Act  June  27,  i5P^— (Arche  C  Winfrey,  11  P.  D.,  38.) 
The  fact  that  the  claimant  was  not  disabled  in  a  pensionable 
degree  from  the  causes  alleged  is  not  a  good  ground  for  reject- 
ing his  claim  under  the  second  section  of  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  if  it  appear  that  he  was  so  disabled  from  other  causes  not 
alleged. 

Disability — Rate — Act  June  27.,  1890 — (Edema.  (Lee  K.  Janney, 
11  P.  D.,  505.) 

Appellant's  disability,  resulting  from  disease  of  left  foot  and 
leg,  evidenced  by  marked  swelling  of  entire  left  lower  extremity 
in  marked  contrast  with  its  fellow,  simulating  elephantiasis,  due 
to  local  oedema,  right  thigh  measuring  17  inches;  left,  18^  inches; 
right  lower  thigh,  15  inches;  left,  16  inches;  knees,  15  inches; 
right  calf,  12,  and  left  17  inches;  right  ankle,  9  inches;  left,  15; 
right  arch  of  foot,  8|,  and  left  10  inches,  existing  in  a  degree 
rendering  him  unable  to  earn  a  support,  he  was  entitled  to  a 
rate  of  $12  per  month  from  October  26,  1899,  and  action  is  re- 
versed. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  225 

7.  Aid  and  Attendance. 

Disahility — Aid  and  attendance — Senility — Hemiplegia.  (Gideon 
Ganoe,  12  P.  D.,  50.) 

The  claimant  is  a  pensioner  at  second-grade  rating  for  rheu- 
matism and  resulting  disease  of  heart.  The  claim  was  rejected 
on  the  ground  that  the  present  helpless  condition  is  due  to 
senility  rather  than  to  pensioned  causes. 

Held:  That  the  pensioned  disabilities  can  not  be  ignored  as 
the  probable  causes  of  the  cerebral  hemorrhage  to  which  the 
existing  left  hemiplegia  is  due.  The  claimant  is  entitled  to  the 
benefit  of  any  reasonable  doubt  as  to  Avhether  senile  changes  were 
or  were  not  the  most  potent  cause  of  the  cerebral  hemorrhage. 
Action  reversed. 

8.  Support. 

Disahility — Rate — Act  June  27^  1890 — Support.  (Edward  L. 
Hobart,  12  P.  D.,  319.) 

As  appellant  is  disabled  from  all  causes  of  a  permanent  char- 
acter, not  due  to  vicious  habits,  in  a  degree  rendering  him  unable 
to  earn  a  full  support  by  manual  labor,  he  is  entitled  to  a  rating 
under  section  2  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

9.  Amputation. 

Disahility — Specific — Amputation — Act  August  4,  1886.  (Henry 
Wheeler,  12  P.  D.,  477.) 

The  question  as  to  whether  there  is  total  disability  in  a  limb, 
as  mentioned  in  the  act  of  August  4,  1886,  is  one  requiring  evi- 
dence to  establish  and  judgment  to  determine,  and  therefore 
such  a  disability  is  not  a  permanent  specific  disability  within  the 
meaning  of  section  4698^  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  and  an 
increased  rate  of  pension  on  account  of  such  a  nonspecific  disa- 
bility must  commence  from  the  date  of  the  certificate  of  the 
medical  examination  had  under  a  claim  for  increase  instead  of 
from  the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  act  of  August  4,  1886. 

10.  Permanent  and  Specific — Rating. 

Disahility — Permanent  and  specific — Rating.  (William  H.  Worm- 
stead,  14  P.  D.,  182.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  the  claimant  was  totally  and  perma- 
nently disabled  in  his  left  hand  by  a  gunshot  wound  at  the  date 
of  his  medical  examination,  August  14,  1865,  and  continuously 
since,  and  he  is  entitled  to  the  specific  ratings  provided  by  law. 
Rates — Specific  diMihility — Act  March  ^,  IdOS^Total  disahility 
in  a  foot.     (Cornelius  F.  Groner,  14  P.  D.,  508.) 

Claimant  having  been  pensioned  at  the  rate  of  $24  per  month 
13070—06 15 


226  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

from  -the  passage  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1883,  from  gunshot 
wound  of  right  thigh  and  resulting  paralysis  of  leg  and  foot, 
resulting  in  total  disability  such  as  to  render  incapacity  to.  per- 
form manual  labor  equivalent  to  the  loss  of  a  hand  or  foot,  he 
must  have  been  totally  disabled  in  the  leg  and  foot  and  entitled 
to  the  rate  of  $40  per  month  provided  by  the  act  of  March  2, 
1903. 

The  Bureau  having  conceded  his  right  to  the  benefits  of  said 
act,  the  increased  rate  of  pension  must  commence  from  the 
approval  of  the  act. 

11.  Soldier  Mexican  War— rDisability. 

Title ^  act  of  January  29^  1887 — Disability.     (Charles  AV.  Johannes, 

9  P.  D.,  341.) 

In  order  to  be  allowed  pension  under  the  act  of  January  29, 
1887,  an  officer  or  enlisted  man  is  not  required  to  show  that  he 
is  subject  to  a  disability  equivalent  to  some  cause  recognized  by 
the  pension  laws  as  sufficient  reason  to  allow  pension  under  those 
laws  at  the  rate  of  $8  per  month ;  said  officer  or  enlisted  man  may 
be  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  said  act  if  it  appear  that  he  is  sub- 
ject to  such  disability  as  would  be  recognized  by  those  laws  as 
sufficient  reason  for  the  allowance  of  pension  for  any  rate  less 
than  $8  per  month. 

DISCHARGE. 

References. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  440). 

See  Desertion:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  382)  ;  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  144,  407;  10 
P.  D.,  355;  11  P.  D.,  13)  ;  No.  3  (9  P.  D.,  442;  10  P.  D.,  55,  141; 
11  P.  D.,  332,  362)  ;  No.  3(a)  (9  P.  D.,  416;  11  P.  D.,  373;  12 
P.  D.,  253,  379)  ;  No.  4(ji)  (12  P.  D.,  450;  15  P.  D.,  63)  ;  No.  4(1)) 
(14  P.  D.,  380,  466)  ;  No.  4(c)  (13  P.  D.,  346;  14  P.  D.,  552)  ;  No. 
4  (d)  (15  P.  D.,  215)  ;  No.  4  (e)  (15  P.  D.,  94)  ;  No.  4  (f )  (14  P.  D., 
352,  502)  ;  No.  6  (9  P.  D.,  255)  :  No.  7  (15  P.  D.,  276). 

See  Practice:  No.  12  (11  P.  D.,  13). 

See  Service:  Nos.  1,  3,  8,  16,  20,  21,  22  (9  P.  D.,  18;  15  P.  D.,  201; 
9  P.  D.,  162,  292;  12  P.  D.,  273;  12  P.  D.,  466;  14  P.  p.,  249;  12 
P.  D.,  407;  11  P.  D.,  206;  13  P.  D.,  237). 
Index. 

1.  Dishonorable. 

2.  Honorable. 

3.  Where  never  discharged. 

4.  Discharged  without  honor. 

5.  Termination  civil  war,  discharged  regulars. 

1.  Dishonorable. 

Discharge — Service— Act  of  June  ^'/,  1890.     (Rosa  Rupp,  widow, 

10  P.  D.,  14.) 

The  soldier  having  been  dishonorably  discharged   from  the 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  227 

service  in  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  his  widow  has  no  title  to  pen- 
sion under  section  3  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 
Discharge  without    honor  —  Dishonorable    discharge.     (John  H. 
Ricketts,  14  P.  D.,  283). 

This  soldier  having  been  discharged  from  service  under  special 
order  mustering  out  his  organization  because  of  its  refusal  to 
obey  orders,  and  such  discharge  being  held  by  the  War  Depart- 
ment to  be  a  discharge  without  honor,  he  was  not  honorably 
discharged  from  such  service,  and  is  not  pensionable  under  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890. 

2.  Honorable. 

Honorahle   discharge — Act  June  ^7,  1890,     (Dennis   Murphy,   9 
P.  D.,  123.) 

Soldier  was  dishonorably  discharged  from  the  Regular  Army 
March  19,  1861,  having  been  in  arrest  for  more  than  a  year  prior 
to  that  date.  He  enlisted  March  22,  1862,  and  served  in  the 
Fourth  California  Volunteers  imtil  March  31,  1866,  when  he  was 
mustered  out.  It  is  held  that  he  was  honorably  discharged  within 
the  meaning  and  intent  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Honorable   discharge — Death  in  service — Act  of  June  27,  1890. 
(Elsie  Hummel,  widow,  9  P.  D.,  311.) 

When  soldier  has  served  a  term  of  ninety  days  or  more  in  the 
military  or  naval  service  of  the  United  States  during  the  late 
war  of  the  rebellion  and  has  been  honorably  discharged  there- 
from, reenlists,  and  dies  during  his  subsequent  term  of.  service, 
his  death  not  being  the  result  of  a  violation  of  any  law,  rule,  or 
regulation  of  the  military  or  naval  service,  the  requirements  of 
the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  as  to  length  of  service  and  honorable  dis- 
charge are  fulfilled,  and  his  widow^  is  entitled  to  pension  on 
compliance  with  the  other  conditions  of  the  act. 

3.  Where  Never  Discharged. 

Discharge — Act   June    27,    1890.     (Susan    Williams,    widow,    10 
P.  D.,  82.) 

The  deceased  soldier  was  never  discharged  from  his  military 

service  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  but  was  murdered  whilt 

in  the  service  under  his  first  and  only  enlistment  at  a  time  when 

absent  from  his  command  on  a  pass. 

wk  Held:  That  his  widow  is  not  entitled  to  pension  under  the 

^B       provisions  of  section  3,  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

^K.  Discharge  Without  Honor. 

^H   Sernice — Discharge — Act  June  27,  1890 — Discharge  without  honor, 
H       (Peter  Andrews,  14  P.  D.,  413.) 


228  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

hard  labor,  under  sentence  of  a  court-martial,  it  is  held  that  his 
discharge  was  not  honorable,  but  "  without  honor,"  and  that  he 
has  not  a  pensionable  status  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 
Service — Dishonorahle  discharge — Act  of  May  9^  1900.     (Alice  C. 
Blue,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  378.) 

Soldier  having  been  dishonorably  discharged  from  the  service 
during  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  his  widow  has  no  title  to  pension 
under  the  act  of  May  9,  1900. 

5.  Termination  Civil  War,  Discharged  Regulars. 

Service — Act  June  ^7, 1890 — Termination  of  war  of  the  rebellion — 
Volunteers.     (Placida  M.  de  Ortega,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  320.) 

The  termination  of  the  war  of  the  rebellion  did  not  operate  as 
a  constructive  discharge  of  volunteers  enlisted  during  said  war, 
as  was  the  case  of  officers  and  men  in  the  regular  establislunent, 
and  the  soldier  or  sailor  upon  whose  service  the  application  is 
based  must  be  shown  to  have  been  honorably  discharged  from  the 
final  contract  of  service  entered  into  by  him  during  the  war  of 
the  rebellion.  See  also  cases  of  William  B.  Johns  (2  P.  D.,  393)  ; 
Helen  M.  Leslie  (6  P.  D.,  255),  and  Evelyn  S.  Tallman  (ibid., 
261). 

DISCHARGE  WITHOUT  HONOR. 

See  Discharge  :  Nos.  1,  4  (14  P.  D.,  283,  413;  15  P.  D.,  378). 

DISHONORABLE  DISCHARGE. 

See  Discharge:  Nos.  1,  4  (10  P.  D.,  14;  14  P.  D.,  283,  413;  15  P.  D., 

378). 

DISBARRED  ATTORNEY. 

See  Fee:  No.  20  (13  P.  D.,  25). 

DISEASE  OF  SPINE. 

See  Pathological  Sequence  :  No.  16  (14  P.  D.,  542). 

DISEASE  OF  EYES. 

See  Origin  :  No.  3  (13  P.  D.,  1). 

DISEASE  OF  RECTUM  AND  UREMIC  POISONING. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  8  (13  P.  D.,  153). 

DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (a)   (10  P.  D.,  110,  118;  13  P.  D.,  234). 

DISEASE  OF  KIDNEYS. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  22  (15  P.  D„  249). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  229 


DIARRHEA. 


See  Pathological  Sequence:  Nos.  14,  22   (13  P.  D.,  307;  15  P.  D., 
249). 


DISMISSAL. 


See  Practice  :  No.  10  (13  P.  D.,  211,  347). 
See  Rebating:  No.  6  (15  P.  D.,  299). 

DIVORCE. 

References. 

See  Decree  of  Nullity:  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7  (10  P.  D.,  238,  284;  11 

P.  D.,  271 ;  13  P.  D.,  460;  14  P.  D.,  290;  15  P.  D.,  227,  286)  ;  No.  8 

(15  P.  D.,  470). 
See  Division  of  Pension  :  Nos.  4,  5,  12,  15,  20  (14  P.  D.,  521 ;  15  P.  D., 

90 ;  11  P.  D.,  494 ;  13  P.  D.,  422,  347  ;  14  P.  D.,  230 ;  15  P.  D.,  38) . 
See  Marriage:  No.  1   (14  P.  D.,  17,  43)  ;  No.  2  (d)    (14  P.  D.,  265)  ; 

No.  2(k)  (12  P.  D.,  481;  15  P.  D.,  186)  ;  No.  2(1)  (13  P.  D.,  333; 

15  P.  D.,  229)  ;  No.  2(n)    (11  P.  D.,  97)  ;  No.  2(o)    (12  P.  D.,  439)  ; 
*       No.  2  (p)   (12  P.  D.,  382)  ;  No.  2  (s)   (11  P.  D.,  114)  ;  No.  2  (t)   (15 

P.  D.,  240;  No.  2(y)  (15  P.  D.,  211)  ;  No.  2(bb)  (12  P.  D.,  340; 

13  P.  D.,  157;  14  P.  D.,  365;  15  P.  D.,  413)  ;  No  2  (ee)  (10  P.  D., 
211)  ;  No.  2  (gg)  (12  P.  D.,  300)  ;  No.  2  (kk)  (12  P.  D.,  514)  ;  No. 
2(oo)  (10  P.  D.,  15)  ;  No.  2(rr)  (10  P.  D.,  227)  ;  No.  3(a)  (9  P. 
D.,  31;  10  P.  D.,  294)  ;  No.  3(b)  (10  P.  D.,  297)  ;  No.  3(e)  (10  P. 
D.,  423;  11  P.  D.,  139;  12  P.  D.,  182,  333)  ;  No.  4  (9  P.  D.,  5,  497, 
506 ;  10  P.  D.,  220,  409 ;  12  P.  D.,  134,  326,  434,  505 ;  13  P.  D.,  90 ; 

14  P.  D.,  21,  310)  ;  No.  5  (10  P.  D.,  258)  ;  No.  10  (9  P.  D.,  30;  10 
P.  D.,  266;  11  P.  D.,  488)  ;  No.  13  (11  P.  D.,  66,  131;  14  P.  D., 
497)  ;  No.  14  (11  P.  D.,  73)  ;  No.  11  (15  P.  D.,  459)  ;  No.  2  (e)  (15 
P.  D.,  493)  ;  No.  2^11)  (15  P.  D.,  540). 

See  Reimbursement  :  No.  2  (13  P.  D.,  201). 

See  Restoration  :  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  510;  13  P.  D.,  118,  435;  14  P.  D., 
Ill,  198,  411,  452;  15  P.  D.,  446). 
Index. 

1.  Nunc  pro  tunc  decrees. 

2.  Presumptions. 

3.  Omission  of  statutory  requirements. 

4.  Fraudulent  divorces,  impeached  where. 

5.  Interlocutory  decree  not  a  divorce. 

6.  Decree  "  nisi  "  or  "  a  mensa  et  thoro  "  not  a. 

7.  New  York  law  as  to  foreign  divorces. 

8.  Indian  divorces  invalid. 

9.  Utah  divorces  valid. 

10.  Essentials  of  a  valid  decree  of. 

1.  Nunc  Pro  Tunc  Decrees. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Nunc  pro  tunc  decree.     (Isabel  W.  Siler, 
widow,  10  P.  D.,  1.) 

Claimant  and  soldier  were  married  on  the  29th  day  of  May, 
1881.  Claimant  was  divorced  from  her  former  husband  April  8, 
1881.     Soldier  had  been  previously  married,  but  in  a  proceeding 


230  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

for  a  divorce  from  his  former  wife  the  records  of  the  circuit  court 
of  Cook  Couuty,  111.,  show  that  on  the  28th  day  of  May,  1881,  the 
case  was  heard  by  the  judge  of  said  court,  and  a  decree  of  divorce 
ordered,  and  a  formal  decree  was  spread  upon  the  records;  it 
further  appears  that  soldier's  attorney  in  said  suit  subsequently 
informed  him  that  a  final  decree  could  not  be  entered  until  soldier 
paid  the  stenographer  for  transcribing  his  notes  of  the  evidence 
taken  in  said  suit  and  a  balance  due  said  attorney;  said  soldier 
paid  said  charges,  whereupon  said  attorney  presented,  on  July 
14,  1881,  to  the  judge  of  said  court  a  decree  in  nearly  the  identical 
language  as  the  decree  formerly  spread  on  the  records  of  said 
court,  which  said  judge  signed,  and  the  same  was  also  spread  on 
the  records.     It  is 

Held:  That  said  soldier  was  legally  divorced  from  his  former 
w^ife  on  the  day  said  cause  was  tried  and  determined,  and  not  on 
the  date  of  entering  said  subsequent  decree,  and  that  his  marriage 
to  claimant  was  valid. 

Divorce — Decree — Record — Marriage — Evidence.  (Mary  E.  Noble, 
widow,  14  P.  D.,  535.) 

Soldier  filed  a  libel  for  divorce  against  claimant.  The  record 
shows  that  the  case  came  to  trial,  that  the  court  found  for  the 
libelant,  and  ordered  that  a  decree  to  that  effect  be  prepared. 
No  formal  record  of  decree  appears  to  have  been  prepared  or 
filed. 

Held:  That  soldier  was  legally  divorced  from  claimant,  who  is 
therefore  not  his  w4dow,  said  divorce  being  effective  by  the  order 
of  the  court  alone  and  not  affected  by  the  lack  of  a  formal  record 
of  decree,  which  is  merely  evidence  of  the  order  of  the  court,  hav- 
ing no  effect  of  itself. 

2.  Presumption. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Evidence.  (Anna  Maria  Gallich,  10  P.  D., 
311.) 

A  divorce  is  never  presumed  except  it  be  for  the  purpose  of 
upholding  a  subsequent  marriage,  such  marriage  having  been 
proved  to  be  an  established  fact. 

The  mere  fact  that  one  lived  with  another  man  or  woman  in  a 
marital  state,  or  that  there  was  a  subsequent  ceremonial  marriage, 
are  not  sufficient  to  warrant  a  presumption  of  divorce.  There 
must  be  other  substantial  facts  in  connection  therewith  before 
such  a  presumption  can  be  successfully  invoked. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Evidence.  (Mary  C.  Orr,  alleged  widow, 
10  P.  D.,  348.) 

1.  Where  a  claimant  for  pension,  in  order  to  sustain  the  legal- 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  281 

ity  of  her  marriage  to  the  soldier,  alleges  that  said  soldier  pro- 
cured a  divorce  from  a  former  wife  (who  also  claims  pension  as 
his  widow)  in  a  certain  county  and  State,  she  must  prove  such 
divorce  by  the  records  of  the  proper  court  in  said  county. 

2.  There  could  be  no  stronger  presumption  in  favor  of  a  second 
ceremonial  marriage  than  there  would  be  in  favor  of  the  validity 
and  continuance  of  the  first  ceremonial  marriage. 

Marriage — Illinois — Missouri- — Evidence — Presnmftion.       (Leticia 
C.  A.  Spencer,  widow;  13  P.  D.,  68.) 

In  either  Illinois  or  Missouri,  where  a  marriage  duly  and  for- 
mally entered  into  is  shown,  a  divorce  from  a  prior  marriage 
will,  in  general,  be  presumed  in  order  to  sustain  such  remarriage. 

Marriage — Iowa — Presunription     of     di  vorce — Divorce — Evidence. 
(Mary  E.  Lyon,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  174.) 

Where  parties  to  a  first  marriage  separate  and  both  remarry, 
or  conduct  themselves  in  a  manner  inconsistent  with  the  continu- 
ance of  the  marriage  relation,  the  dissolution  of  said  marriage 
by  divorce  may  be  presumed,  in  Iowa,  in  order  to  validate  the 
subsequent  remarriage  of  either  party,  if  the  equities  of  the  case 
demand  it  and  the  circumstances  of  the  case  permit  the  indul- 
gence of  said  presumption.  (Blanchard  v,  Lambert,  48  Iowa, 
228;  Leach  v.  Hall,  95  Iowa,  611;  Parsons  v.  Grand  Lodge,  108 
Iowa,  6,  and  Tuttle  r.  Raish,  116  Iowa,  331,  distinguished  from 
Ellis  V.  Ellis,  58  Iowa,  720;  Oilman  v.  Sheets,  78  Iowa,  499,  and 
Barnes  v.  Barnes,  90  Iowa,  282.) 

Omission  of  Statutory  Requirements. 

Jurisdiction  —  Notice  —  Decree  —  Divorce.     (Emma    M.    Cooper, 
widow,  10  P.  D.,  434.) 

The  widow's  claim  was  rejected  on  the  ground  that  her  hus- 
band obtained  a  divorce  from  her  in  the  State  of  Colorado 
while  she  resided  in  Massachusetts.  The  transcript  of  the  record 
fails  to  show  affirmatively  that  a  copy  of  the  summons  in  the 
divorce  proceedings  was  mailed  to  her,  although  her  post-office 
address  was  known.  This  statutory  requirement  being  omitted, 
it  is  fatal  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court. 

Jurisdiction — Divorce — Decree — Record.       (Annie       M.       Shipp, 
widow,  11  P.  D.,  226.) 

The  widow's  claim  was  rejected  on  the  ground  that  her  hus- 
band obtained  a  divorce  from  her  in  the  State  of  Indiana  while 
she  resided  in  Arizona.  The  transcript  of  the  record  fails  to 
show  affirmatively  that  a  copy  of  the  summons  in  the  divorce 
proceedings  was  mailed  to  her,  although  her  post-office  address 
was  known.  This  statutory  requirement  being  omitted,  it  is  fatal 
to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court. 


232  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Jurisdiction — Decree — Evidence — Divorce.  ( Elizabeth  William- 
son, widow,  11  P.  D.,  406.) 

The  decree  of  divorce  obtained  by  the  soldier  in  the  State  of 
Arkansas  in  1879  against  the  claimant,  who  was  in  the  State  of 
Illinois,  is  void  for  the  reason  that  the  statutory  requirement 
that  the  warning  order  should  be  published  was  not  complied 
with. 

4.  Fraudulent  Divorces,  Impeached  Where. 

Jurisdiction — Divorce — Practice — Division  of  pension.  (Chris- 
tine Cooper  V.  Joel  S.  Cooper,  13  P.  D.,  208.) 

Claimant  should  test  the  validity  of  her  husband's  alleged 
fraudulent  divorce  in  the  court  where  the  divorce  was  procured, 
or  impeach  its  validit}^  by  proper  proceedings  in  another  court. 

Public  policy  and  administrative  duty  require  that  questions 
of  this  nature  should  be  left  to  the  courts  and  that  parties  ques- 
tioning the  validity  of  a  decree  or  judgment  of  court  of  gen- 
eral jurisdiction  over  the  subject-matter,  collaterally,  in  a  pro- 
ceeding of  this  nature,  shoidd  be  relegated  to  the  courts  for  their 
remedy. 

Marriage — Divorce — Fraud — Practice — Division  of  pension — A  ct 
of  March  3,  1899.  (Mary  J.  Powell  /'.  William  A.  Powell,  13 
P.  D.,  236.) 

Pensioner  procured  a  decree  of  divorce  in  the  State  of  Indiana, 
the  wife  being  a  resident  of  the  State  of  Ohio.  Xo  notice  of  the 
divorce  proceedings  was  served  upon  the  wife,  and  she  did  not 
appear. 

Claimant  should  test  the  validity  of  her  husband's  alleged 
fraudulent  divorce  in  the  court  where  the  divorce  was  procured, 
or  impeach  its  validity  by  proi^er  proceedings  in  another  court. 

Public  policy  and  administrative  duty  require  that  questions 
of  this  nature  shoukl  be  left  to  the  courts  and  that  parties  ques- 
tioning the  validity  of  a  decree  or  judgment  of  court  of  general 
jurisdiction  over  the  subject-matter,  collaterally,  in  a  proceeding 
of  this  nature,  should  be  relegated  to  the  courts  for  their  remedy. 

5.  Interlocutory  Decree  Not  a  Divorqe. 

Decree — Default — Divorce — Interlocutory  decree.  (Adaline  Long, 
alleged  widow,  11  P.  D.,  499.) 

Under  the  civil  practice  of  Missouri  an  interlocutory  decree  of 
default  in  a  divorce  case,  no  trial  being  had  nor  decree  entered 
upon  the  merits  of  the  case,  is  not  a  decree  dissolving  the  bonds 
of  matrimony  existing  between  a  plaintiff  and  defendant,  not- 
withstanding such  decree  states  that  said  bonds  are  dissolved, 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  233 

"  and  that  unless  the  defendant  appear  at  the  next  regular  term  " 
and  "  show  good  cause  to  the  contrary  judgment  will  be  finally 
rendered.     *     *     *  55 

Marriage — Divorce — Decree — Indiana — Judgment — Record — Find- 
ing.    (Annie  Davis,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  278.) 

1.  The  marriage  relation  is  dissolved  on  rendition  of  a  decree 
or  judgment  for  divorce,  which  is  the  act  of  the  court,  and  not 
upon  entry  thereof  or  upon  issue  of  a  certified  copy  of  the  decree, 
which  is  merely  the  ministerial  act  of  the  clerk. 

2.  A  record  to  the  effect  that  on  trial  the  court  finds  that  the 
libelant  is  entitled  to  a  decree  of  divorce  is  merely  a  record  of 
the  verdict  on  the  issue  of  fact  presented,  and  the  bonds  of  matri- 
mony are  not  dissolved  until  there  is  judgment  on  the  verdict — 
i.  e.,  the  rendition  of  a  decree. 

6.  Decree  "  Nisi "  or  "A  Mensa  et  Thoro  "  not  a. 

Marriage    and   divorce  —  Decree    nisi  —  Laws    of   Massachusetts, 
(Hannah  J.  Bills,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  445.) 

Appellant  was,  prior  to  her  ceremonial  marriage  to  the  soldier, 
married  to  one  Erasmus  Holmes,  and  on  her  libel  was  granted  a 
decree  of  divorce  from  bed  and  board  against  him  in  the  State  of 
Massachusetts.  It  is  not  shown  that  such  decree  was  ever  made 
absolute,  or  that  said  marriage  had  been  dissolved.  Therefore 
her  marriage  to  the  soldier  while  said  Holmes  was  living  was 
void  and  she  is  not  his  widow. 
Marriage — Divorce — Restoration  under  act  of  March  3\  1901 — Evi- 
dence— Decree  nisi — Estoppel.  (Ruth  A.  Pitkin,  as  widow  of 
Carlos  R.  Bugbee,  14  P.  D.,  438.) 

1.  A  divorce  nisi  in  Massachusetts  does  not  dissolve  the  mar- 
riage relation.  Until  the  decree  is  made  absolute,  coverture 
continues. 

2.  Absolute  divorce,  after  the  expiration  of  six  months  from 
rendition  of  decree  nisi,  is  not  in  the  nature  of  a  decree  nunc  pro 
tunc;  coverture  for  any  purpose,  except  cohabitation,  is  not  ter- 
minated at  any  time  prior  to  decree  absolute. 

3.  A  claim  for  restoration  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1901, 
executed  during  the  term  of  a  decree  nisi,  is  invalid. 

4.  Presumption  of  death  attaches  in  Massachusetts  as  at  com- 
mon law. 

5.  Where  an  allegation  of  death  of  a  spouse,  insusceptible  of 
proof  by  primary  evidence,  is  followed  by  the  filing  of  a  libel  for 
divorce,  based  upon  desertion  of  said  spouse,  libelant  is  not  after- 
wards estopped  from  invoking  presumption  of  death;  but  the 
allegation  in  the  libel  may  be  considered  as  evidence  upon  the 
question  of  rebuttal  of  presumption. 


234  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Restoration — Act  of  March  3, 190 J — Separation — Divorce.     (Sarah 
E.  Smith,  now  Herriman,  ^Yidow,  15  P.  D.,  128.) 

Claimant  obtained  a  decree  of  separation  from  bed  and  board 
from  her  second  husband.  Said  second  marriage  was  not  dis- 
solved by  said  decree,  and  claimant  is  still  the  wife  of  said  Herri- 
man.  A  decree  a  mensa  et  thoro  is  not  a  divorce  within  the 
meaning  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1901.  Claimant  therefore  has  no 
title  to  restoration. 

7.  New  York  Law  as  to  Foreign  Divorces. 

Marriage  in  New  York — Divorce — Decree.     (Eugenia  Sherwood, 
widow,  12  P.  D.,  303.) 

Appellant  married  the  soldier,  by  ceremony,  in  the  State  of 
New  York,  February  28,  1866,  and  they  lived  together  in  that 
State  as  husband  and  w^ife  for  one  year  and  nine  days,  when  they 
separated.  Some  time  thereafter  soldier  left  the  State  of  Ncav 
York  for  the  State  of  Michigan,  accompanied  by  one  Eliza  J. 
\Yhite.  While  in  the  State  of  Michigan  soldier  applied  for  and 
obtained  a  divorce  from  claimant.  May  5,  1870,  on  the  ground  of 
desertion,  and  on  March  4,  1871,  married,  by  a  ceremony,  said 
Eliza  J.  \Yhite,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  and  lived  with  her 
as  her  husband  until  his  death  in  1879,  two  children  being  born 
to  them  during  this  period. 

Held:  That  under  section  2  of  the  act  of  August  7,  1882,  which 
provides  that  marriages  "  shall  be  proved  in  pension  cases  to  be 
legal  marriages,  according  to  the  law  of  the  place  where  the 
parties  resided  at  the  time  of  the  marriage  or  at  the  time  when 
the  right  to  pension  accrued,"  soldier's  second  marriage  was  void, 
the  courts  of  New  York,  w^here  claimant  and  soldier  were  mar- 
ried, and  where  she  resided  at  the  time  the  right  to  pension 
accrued,  having  decided  that  a  decree  of  divorce  in  another  State, 
proceeding  on  a  constructive  service  of  process  by  publication, 
though  valid  by  the  law  of  the  forum,  is  void  in  the  State  of 
New  York,  and  does  not  change  the  status  of  a  defendant  in  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  State  of  New  York. 

(See  Atherton  v.  Atherton,  82  Hun,  N.  Y.,  179;  In  re  House, 
40  N.  Y.  St.,  286;  David  v.  Davis,  2  Del.,  549;  Williams  v.  Wil- 
liams, 130  N.  Y.,  193;  People  r.  Baker,  76  N.  Y.,  78;  Vischer  v. 
Vischer,  12  Barb.,  N.  Y.,  640,  and  Kerr  v.  Kerr,  41  N.  Y.,  272.) 

Marriage  and  divorce — New  York — Jurisdiction.     (Mary  J.  Mar- 
shall, widow,  14  P.  D.,  173.) 

The  claimant  and  soldier  were  married,  by  ceremony,  in  the 
State  of  New  York,  June  7,  1868,  and  they  lived  together  in  that 
State  as  man  and  w4fe  until  April  8,  1886,  w^hen  the  soldier  de- 
serted her.     He  applied  for  and  obtained  a  divorce  from  claim- 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  235 

ant  on  November  (*),  1801,  while  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  on  the 
ground  of  desertion,  and  on  August  2,  1892,  he  married  one 
Lillian  (iridley,  the  ceremony  being  performed  in  the  State  of 
Wisconsin.  The  claimant  resided  in  New  York  at  the  time  said 
divorce  was  granted,  was  not  served  Avith  process,  and  made  no 
appearance  at  the  trial  and  authorized  no  defense. 

Held:  That  the  courts  of  New  York  having  decided  that  a 
divorce  obtained  in  another  State  against  a  citizen  of  New  York 
in  an  action  where  there  was  no  personal  service  of  process  wdthin 
the  former  State  and  no  personal  appearance  in  the  action  by 
the  defendant  is  void  in  the  State  of  New  York  and  does  not 
change  the  status  of  the  defendant  in  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
State  of  New^  York,  this  claimant  is  therefore  held  to  be  the 
legal  widow  of  the  soldier. 

8.  Indian  Divorces  Invalid. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Laics  of  Cherokee  Nation.  (Lucinda  Ross, 
widow,  12  P.  D.,  474.) 

The  Cherokee  Nation  in  the  year  1859  passed  an  act  prescrib- 
ing the  manner  and  method  of  obtaining  divorces  in  said  nation. 
In  the  year  1806  John  Ross,  sergeant.  Company  K,  Third  Indian 
Volunteer  Home  Guards,  attempted  to  divorce  his  wife  accord- 
ing to  an  old  tribal  custom,  by  sending  her  away  from  his 
home,  and  then  took  the  claimant  herein  as  his  wdfe,  the  said 
act  still  being  in  force. 

Held :  The  attempted  divorce  w^as  futile,  and  the  attempted 
marriage  with  claimant  void  ab  initio. 

9.  Utah  Divorces  Valid. 

Marriage — Divorce — Utah — Act  June  27^  J 890.  (Mary  E.  Smed- 
ley,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  99.) 

The  act  of  Congress  approved  June  23,  1874,  conferred  juris- 
diction upon  the  probate  courts  of  the  Territory  of  Utah  in 
divorce  matters.  The  act  of  the  Territorial  legislature  of  Utah 
approved  March  6,  1852,  gave  the  j^robate  courts  of  said  Terri- 
tory jurisdiction  in  divorce  matters,  and  such  act  was  in  force 
August  10,  1876. 

On  said  last-mentioned  date  the  probate  court  of  Boxelder 
County,  Utah,  issued  a  decree  of  divorce  between  claimant  and 
the  soldier  herein,  which  divorce  decree  is  valid  upon  its  face. 

Held:  The  said  probate  court  having  jurisdiction,  and  the 
decree  being  valid  on  its  face,  all  statutory  requirements  and 
orders  of  the  court  having  been  strictty  fulfilled,  the  claimant 
Avas  regularly  divorced  from  the  soldier  and  is  consequently  not 
his  widow. 


236  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

10.  Essentials  of  a  Valid  Decree  of. 

Marriage     and     divorce — Decree — Jurisdiction.     (Melissa     Boyd, 
widow,  14  P.  D.,  279.) 

A  divorce  decree  w^hich  shows  upon  its  face  the  necessary 
jurisdiction,  the  record  showing  the  necessary  jurisdictional 
facts,  and  such  decree  being  valid  and  binding  in  the  State  in 
which  it  was  rendered,  will  be  regarded  as  conclusive  by  this 
Department  in  the  administration  of  pension  affairs,  provided 
that  no  fraud  was  perpetrated  upon  the  court,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, for  the  purpose  of  affecting  the  pensionable  rights  of  ^ny 
person. 
Divorce — Decree — Jiidge'^s  minutes — Indiana — Record.  ( Emma 
Riley,  as  widow,  15  P.  D.,  389.) 

The  records  of  the  circuit  court  of  Randolpli  County,  Ind., 
sufficiently  show  the  fact  of  the  rendition  of  a  valid  decree  of 
divorce  of  the  claimant  from  the  soldier,  and  she  is,  therefore,  not 
his  widow. 

The  final  formal  official  record  of  judgments  or  decrees  is,  in 
Indiana,  the' judgment  docket;  but  upon  the  failure  of  the  clerk 
of  court  to  enter  a  judgment  or  decree  upon  such  docket,  the 
judge's  official  minutes  are  competent  evidence  to  show  the  fact 
and  nature  of  such  judgment  or  decree,  and  when  the  final  entry 
in  such  docket  or  in  said  minutes  insufficiently  or  inaccurately 
expresses  such  judgment  or  decree,  the  latter  should  be  construed 
in  accordance  with  the  pleadings  and  the  entire  record  in  the 
cause. 
Marriage  —  Divorce  —  Michigan  —  Colorado — Collusion — Fraud — 
Estoppel — Res  judicata.  (Melissa  D.  Heazlit,  widow,  15  P.  D., 
553.) 

Claimant  was  married  to  the  soldier  in  Michigan  in  1864,  and, 
though  still  a  resident  of  that  State,  by  collusion  with  the  soldier 
obtained  a  divorce  from  him  in  Colorado  in  January,  1883.  The 
soldier  remarried  in  Michigan  in  March,  1883,  and  died  there  in 
1901.     Claimant  denies  the  validity  of  the  Colorado  divorce. 

Held:  (1)  That  said  divorce  was  valid,  as  the  statutes  of 
Colorado  at  that  date,  the  defendant  being  a  resident  of  that 
State  and  the  offense  complained  of  having  been  committed 
within  its  borders,  did  not  require  that  the  complainant  should 
be  a  resident  thereof;  (2)  that,  if  invalid,  her  fraudulent  acts, 
followed  by  acquiescence  in  the  soldier's  remarriage,  would  estoj) 
her  from  denying  its  validity,  and  (3)  that  under  the  circum- 
stances in  this  case  the  Department  will  follow  the  decision  of  a 
court  of  original  and  inferior  jurisdiction  in  Michigan,  in  a  suit 
where  the  same  issue  was  presented  and  claimant  was  a  party  to 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  237 

the  proceeding,  wherein  it  was  held  that  said  divorce  and  the 
subsequent  marriage  were  valid. 

DESERTED  WIFE. 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  Nos.  1,  2,  4,  5  (11  P.  D.,  200,  288,  377,  494; 

12  P.  D.,  7,  5G,  421,  507 ;  13  P.  D.,  134,  142,  143,  177,  180,  212,  430 ; 

14  P.  D.,  45,  130,  159,  191,  394,  404,  521 ;  15  P.  D.,  90,  221,  342). 
See  Construction  of  Statutes:  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  77,  90). 

DIVISION  OF  PENSION. 

References. 

See  Divorce:  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  236). 

See  Marriage:  No.  1  (14  P.  D.,  17,  43)  ;  No.  2  (ii)   (15  P.  D.,  2.36). 
See  Practice:  Nos.  1,  10,  17,  20,  21,  22,  26   (15  P.  D.,  96;  13  P.  D., 
161,  176;  12  P.  D.,  44,  157,  225,  441 ;  13  P.  D.,  203,  206,  299,  542 ;  14 
P.  D.,  8). 
Index. 

1.  Construction  of  act. 

2.  Notice  of  appeal. 

3.  Pension  unlawfully  withheld. 

4.  Pensioner's  desertion  of  his  wife. 

5.  Pensioner  divorced. 

6.  Commencement. 

7.  Articles  of  separation. 

8.  Domicile. 

9.  Jurisdiction. 

10.  Residence  in  Soldiei*s'  Home. 

11.  Failure  to  prosecute. 

12.  Marriage. 

13.  Necessitous  circumstances. 

14.  Payment. 

15.  Practice. 

16.  Separation. 

17.  Evidence. 

18.  Moral  character. 

19.  Naval  Home. 

20.  Estoppel. 

1.  Construction  of  Act. 
Deserted  wife — Act  March  3^  1899 — Evidence.     (Mary  A.  Rothery 
V.  Henry  N.  Rothery,  11  P.  D.,  377.) 

The  word  "  desertion  "  in  the  act  of  March  8, 1899,  is  used  in  its 
general  legal  sense  and  means  the  willful  withdrawal  of  the  pen- 
sioner from  his  wife,  or  his  voluntary  refusal  to  renew  a  sus- 
pended cohabitation,  without  legal  justification.  (Rothery  v. 
Rothery,  11  P.  D.,  77;  Richards  /'.  Richards,  ibid.,  90;  Henry 
N.  Rothery,  ibid.,  255.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case  shows  that  pensioner  did  not  will- 
fully desert  claimant,  but  that  his  separation  from  his  wife  is 
due  to  her  own  conduct  toward  him  and  is  in  accordance  with  her 
wish. 


238  PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

Division  of  pension — Act  March  5,  1890 — Construction  of  statutes. 
(Elizabeth  Cooper  v.  John  M.  Cooper,  12  P.  D.,  163.) 

The  portion  of  soldier's  pension  forfeited  to  his  wife  by  rea- 
son of  his  desertion,  under  the  first  proviso  of  the  act  of  March 
3,  1899,  is  one-half  the  pension  "  due  or  to  become  due  "  him 
after  his  statutory  desertion  of  six  months  subsequent  to  the  pas- 
sage of  the  act  and  during  the  continuance  of  said  desertion. 

It  is  only  the  pension  owing  or  accruing  during  the  period  of 
statutor}^  desertion  that  is  to  be  divided. 

Division  of  pension — Minor — Remarriage — Vested  right — Title — 
Construction.     (Swepston  v.  Swepston,  15  P.  D.,  82.) 

The  legal  guardian  of  pensioner's  minor  child  having  estab- 
lished title  to  the  benefit  of  the  first  proviso  of  the  act  of  March 
3,  1899,  his  right  to  receive  one-half  of  his  father's  pension  is 
vested  to  the  extent  that  it  can  not  be  divested,  terminated,  or 
suspended  by  pensioner's  subsequent  marriage. 

The  "  wife  "  who  bars  the  deserted  minor  child  from  receiving 
the  benefit  of  the  first  proviso  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  is  the 
wife  first  described  in  said  proviso  and  who  is  in  esse  at  the 
time  pensioner  deserts  his  said  child. 

The  words  "  no  wife  "  in  the  first  proviso  of  the  act  of  March 
3,  1899,  are  limited  by  the  context  to  the  Congressional  intent  as 
gathered  from  the  entire  act. 

Division  of  pension — Act  of  March  5,  1899 — Desertion — Soldiers'' 
Home — Construction.     (Cashman  v.  Cashman,  15  P.  D.,  221.) 

As  the  evidence  in  this  case  establishes  the  facts  that  pensioner 
was,  at  the  date  of  claimant's  application  for  one-half  his  pen- 
sion an  inmate  of  a  Branch  of  the  National  Soldiers'  Home,  and 
that  she  is  a  woman  of  good  moral  character  and  in  necessitous 
circumstances,  the  allowance  of  her  claim  under  the  third  pro- 
viso of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  was  in  accordance  with  the  lav; 
and  the  evidence,  and  the  same  is  affirmed. 

The  question  of  marital  desertion  is  not  involved  in  claims 
under  the  third  proviso  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899. 

The  fourth  proviso  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  aside  from  the 
last  sentence,  relates  solely  to  widows,  and  has  no  reference  to 
claims  for  division  of  pension  arising  under  the  first,  second,  or 
third  provisos  of  the  act. 

Division  of  pensions — Act  of  March  3,  1899 — Minors.  (Reversed. 
Mitchell  V.  Mitchell,  15  P.  D.,  382.) 

Pensioner  abandoned  his  minor  children  in  1895,  at  which  time 
he  had  a  lawful  wife  living,  whom  he  abandoned  in  1896,  but 
who  is  shown  to  be  a  woman  of  immoral  character. 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  239 

Held:  His  minors  have  title  to  one-half  his  pension  under  the 
first  proviso  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899. 

2.  Notice  of  Appeal. 

Deserted  wife — Act  March  3,  1899 — Division  of  pension — Notice 
of  appeal.     (Emily  Ellis  v.  Leroy  Ellis,  11  P.  D.,  288.) 

In  cases  of  contest  over  the  division  of  pension  under  the  act 
of  March  3,  1899,  the  appellee  is  entitled  to  notice  of  the  appeal 
and  a  copy  thereof  and  reasonable  time  in  which  to  file  a  brief 
and  argument  in  support  of  the  Bureau  action  appealed  from. 

3.  Pension  Unlawfully  Withheld. 

Division  of  pension — Act  March  S,  1899 — Repayment  to  pensioner. 
Henry  N.  Rothery,  11  P.  D.,  255.) 

It  having  been  decided  that  upon  a  proper  construction  of  the 
law  and  upon  the  evidence  in  the  case  the  division  of  the  pension 
and  the  payment  to  the  wife  of  this  pensioner,  by  virtue  of  the 
act  named,  were  erroneous  and  without  proper  warrant  of  law, 
the  refusal  to  restore  to  him  the  amount  of  which  he  was  de- 
prived is  likewise  illegal,  and  it  is  directed  that  such  amount 
shall  be  paid  to  him. 

4.  Pensioner's  Desertion  of  His  Wife. 

Deserted  wife — Act  March  3,  1899.     (Mary  C.  Slagle,  widow,  11 
P.  D.,  260.) 

It  appearing  from  soldier's  own  testimony  that  he  deserted  his 
wife  and  that  she  was  a  woman  of  good  moral  character;  and  it 
further  appearing  that  said  wife  is  in  necessitous  circumstances, 
the  action  of  the  Bureau  of  Pensions  in  paying  to  said  wife  one- 
half  of  the  pension  he  was  drawing  was  proper  and  is  affirmed. 

Division  of  pension — Act  March  3,  1899 — Desertion.     (Nancy  J. 
Harris  v.  Homer  V.  Harris,  12  P.  D.,  7.) 

As  the  evidence  in  the  case  fails  to  show  that  pensioner 
deserted  his  wife,  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899, 
the  payment  to  her  of  one-half  of  his  pension  was  error. 

Division  of  pension — Act  March  3,  1899 — Desertion — Separation. 
(Catherine  Fleagle  v.  Josiah  Fleagle,  12  P.  D.,  56.) 

Claimant  at  the  date  of  filing  her  claim  for  one-half  of  sol- 
dier's pension  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  was  living  sepa- 
rate and  apart  from  her  husband  pursuant  to  a  mutual  agree- 
ment for  separation  executed  March  10,  1897,  which  agreement 
was  in  full  force  and  effect.  She  was,  therefore,  not  in  position 
to  charge  her  husband  with  desertion,  a.s  his  absence  from  her  is 
with  her  consent  and  in  accordance  with  her  express  agreement. 


240  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

(Stewart  on  Marriage  and  Divorce,  par.  256;  9  Am.  and  Eng. 
Ency.,  2d  ed.,  767;  Stoffer  v.  Stoffer,  50  Mich.,  491.) 

Division  of  pension — Act  March  3, 1899 — Desertion.     (Alice  Smith 
V,  Thomas  Smith,  12  P.  D.,  421.) 

The  fact  that  claimant,  since  the  allowance  of  her  claim  for 
division  of  her  husband's  pension,  refused  to  live  with  him  will 
not  justify  a  reversal  of  the  Bureau  action. 

Division  of  pensio7i — Act  of  March  3,  .1899 — Separation.     (Eliza- 
beth Ann  Coats  v.  Andrew  Coats,  12  P.  D.,  507.) 

1.  The  cAddence  in  this  case  fails  to  satisfactorily  show  that 
pensioner's  absence  from  claimant  since  March  3,  1899,  was  in 
opposition  to  her  wishes  or  against  her  consent. 

2.  Separation  by  mutual  consent  does  not  constitute  desertion 
(Rothery  v.  Rothery,  11  P.  D.,  77,  377).  Consent  may  be 
inferred  from  conduct  (Ingersoll  v.  Ingersoll,  49  Pa.  St.,  249). 

Division    of   pension — Act   March    3,    1899 — Desertion — Practice. 
(Charlotte  L.  Livengood  v.  John  A.  Livengood,  13  P.  D.,  134.) 

First.  The  adjudication  of  a  claim  under  the  third  proviso  of 
the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  as  a  claim  under  the  first  proviso  of 
said  act  is  error. 

Second.  Pensioner  having  left  the  National  Soldiers'  Home 
subsequent  to  the  date  on  which  claimant  filed  her  said  first 
application,  she  thereupon  filed  a  claim  based  upon  the  first 
proviso  of  said  act  of  March  3,  1899,  alleging  desertion,  which 
claim  was  rejected  by  the  Bureau  on  the  ground  that  she  had 
failed  to  prove  statutory  desertion. 

Held:  That  the  testimony  taken  on  special  examination  fairly 
shows  pensioner  responsible  for  the  separation  from  his  wife, 
and  that  his  intemperate  habits  and  abuse  of  claimant  legally 
justified  her  in  refusing  to  renew^  the  suspended  marital  rela- 
tions terminated  by  his  desertion  September  15,  1901. 
Division  of  pensio7i — Act  of  March  3,  1899 — Desertion — Evidence. 
(Martha  J.  Haines  v.  John  Haines,  13  P.  D.,  142.) 

Pensioner's  contention  that  he  did  not  desert  claimant,  but  that 
she  was  responsible  for  the  separation,  is  not  sustained  by  the 
evidence,  she  being  legally  justified  in  her  refusal  to  renew  the 
marital  relations  suspended  by  her  husband's  conviction  of 
adultery. 
Divisio7i  of  pension — Act  March  5,  1899 — Desertion.  (Clifford  H. 
Buzick  /'.  James  S.  Buzick,  13  P.  D.,  143.) 

Where  a  divorce  is  granted  the  husband  for  the  fault  of  the 
wife  and  she  voluntarily  assumes  the  exclusive  custody  and  con- 
trol of  their  minor  child,  the  failure  of  the  father  to  contribute 
to  the  support  of  the  child  while  deprived  of  its  custody  does 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  241 

not  constitute  desertion  of  such  child  within  the  meaning  of  the 
act  of  March  3,  1899. 

Division  of  pension — Act  of  March  3^  1899 — Desertion.     (Fannie 
Smith  V.  William  A.  Smith,  13  P.  D.,  177.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case  fails  to  show  desertion  on  the  part 
of  the  pensioner,  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  the  separation 
of  the  parties  being  the  result  of  claimant's  desire  to  change 
their  place  of  residence  in  opposition  to  the  wishes  of  pensioner, 
and  make  her  home  with  her  children  instead  of  with  her 
husband. 

Division  of  pension — Act  of  March  3,  1899 — Desertion — Evidence. 
(Mary  E.  Head  v.  George  Head,  13  P.  D.,  180.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case  shows  that  claimant  is  the  wife  of 
pensioner  and  that  he  deserted  her  for  more  than  six  months 
prior  to  the  date  on  which  she  filed  her  application  under  the  act 
of  March  3,  1899;  that  claimant  is  a  woman  of  good  moral 
character  and  in  necessitous  circumstances. 

Divisio7i  of  pension  —  Marital  desertion.     (Martha  A.  Hayes  v. 
Abner  Hayes,  13  P.  D.,  212.) 

The  question  of  marital  desertion  is  immaterial,  so  far  as  it 
involves  the  wife's  right  to  one-half  her  husband's  pension  under 
the  second  or  third  proviso  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899.  (Medley 
V.  Medley,  12  P.  D.,  490;  Adams  v.  Adams,  ibid.,  370,  and  Liven- 
good  V.  Livengood,  13  P.  D.,  134.) 

Division  of  pension — Act  March  3,  1899. — Desertion.     (Elizabeth 
Martin  v.  David  W.  Martin,  13  P.  D.,  430.) 

By  the  term  ''  statutory  desertion,"  as  applied  to  the  act  of 
March  3,  1899,  is  meant  continuous  desertion  for  the  statutory 
period  of  over  six  months  subsequent  to  the  passage  of  said  act. 

The  evidence  in  this  case  not  only  fails  to  establish  statutory 
desertion  of  the  wife  by  her  husband,  within  the  meaning  of  the 
first  proviso  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  but  also  fails  to  show 
desertion  by  pensioner  within  the  general  legal  definition  of  that 
word  as  applied  to  matrimonial  relations. 

Division  of  pension — Act  March  3,  1899 — Desertion.     (Lockard  v. 
Lockard,  14  P.  D.,  45.) 

Where  the  husband,  by  his  cruelty  and  abuse,  drives  his  wife 
from  the  matrimonial  home  it  may  be  presumed  that  he  intended 
to  effect  a  separation  by  his  own  wrongful  and  illegal  acts.  The 
one  who  intentionally  drives  the  other  away  is  the  deserter. 
(Rothery  v.  Rothery,  11  P.  D.,  77,  377;  Barnett  v.  Barnett,  27 
Ind.  App.,  471.) 

13070—06 16 


242  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Division  of  pension — Act  of  March  3,  1899 — Desertion.     (Byrns  v. 
Byrns,  14  P.  D.,  404.) 

Pensioner's  contention  that  he  did  not  desert  chiiniant  is  not 
sustained  by  the  evidence  in  this  case. 

A  wife  deserted  by  her  husband  is,  under  the  hiws  of  Cali- 
fornia, entitled  to  her  own  domicile.      (Moffatt  r.  Moffatt,  5  CaL, 
281;  Hardenberger  v.  Hardenberger,  14  CaL,  654.) 
Division   of  pension — Act  March  3^  1899 — Desertion.     (Hender- 
shott  v.  Hendershott,  14  P.  D.,  130.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case  fails  to  establish  the  fact  that  pen- 
sioner^ deserted  claimant  or  that  he  was  the  party  in  fault  for  the 
separation. 

A\Tiere  the  wife,  by  her  cruelty  and  misconduct,  drives  her 
husband  from  her,  it  may  be  presumed  that  she  intended  to 
effect  a  separation  by  her  illegal  acts.  The  one  who  inten- 
tionally drives  the  other  away  is  the  deserter.  (Rothery  v. 
Rothery,  11  P.  D.,  77,  377;  AVhitney  i\  AVliitney,  ibid.,  301; 
Lockard  v.  Lockard,  14  P.  D.,  No.  12,  current  series;  Barnett  v. 
Barnett,  27  Ind.,  471 ;  Warner  v.  Warner,  54  Mich.,  492 ;  Lea  i\ 
Lea,  99  Mass.,  493.) 

Drafting  affidavits  for  both  parties  and  their  witnesses  and 
administering  the  oath  as  a  notary  public  do  not  raise  the  pre- 
sumption that  the  person  performing  said  acts  is  the  attorney 
for  either  party,  nor  is  he  thereby  disqualified  from  subsequently 
becoming  the  attorney  for  either  of  the  parties  in  a  claim  for 
division  of  pension  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899. 
Division  of  pension — Desertion — Evidence.  (Rebecca  F.  Kendell 
V.  William  T.  Kendell,  14  P.  D.,  159.) 

The  husband,  having  deserted  his  w4fe,  can  not,  by  offering  her 
a  home  elsewhere  (which  he  does  not  possess),  constitute  her 
the  deserter  merely  because  she  refuses  to  follow  him. 

The  evidence  in  this  case  fairly  shows  that  pensioner  deserted 
his  wdfe,  and  that  she  is  legally  justified  in  refusing  to  renew  the 
suspended  marital  relations. 
Division  of  pension— Insanity — Desertion — Intent.     (Burnham  v, 
Burnham,  14  P.  D.,  191.) 

'Where  pensioner,  at  the  date  of  his  wife's  application  for  one- 
half  his  pension  under  the  first  proviso  of  the  act  of  March  3, 
1899,  and  at  the  date  of  the  alleged  desertion,  was  adjudged 
insane,  it  is  incvmibent  upon  the  wife,  in  order  to  establish  de- 
sertion under  said  act,  to  show  that  her  husband,  at  the  date 
of  the  alleged  desertion,  was  capable  of  understanding  and 
entertaining  an  intent  to  desert  her,  as  intent  is  an  essential  ele- 
ment in  desertion.  "  Desertion  begins  with  the  intent  to  desert." 
(Martin  v.  Martin,  13  P.  D.,  430.) 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  243 

Division    of    pension — Act    March    3^    1899 — Cruelty — Desertion. 
(Demo  V.  Demo,  14  P.  D.',  394.) 

The  wife  who,  by  her  cruelty,  drives  her  husband  from  home 
is  herself  the  deserter. 

Cruelty  was,  at  the  common  law,  cause  for  a  decree  of  separa- 
tion. 

Cruelty,  as  it  relates  to  the  marital  status,  is  any  conduct  on 
the  part  of  either  of  the  married  parties  as  endangers  the  life, 
body,  or  health  of  the  other  and  renders  cohabitation  unsafe  or 
intolerable. 

False  charges  and  a  persistent  course  of  jealous  conduct  on  the 
part  of  the  Avife,  without  cause,  following  her  husband  about, 
employing  detectives  to  do  so,  and  attempts  to  humiliate,  ex- 
asperate, and  insult  him  amount  to  such  cruelty  as  would  justify 
a  separation  Avithout  subjecting  the  husband  to  the  charge  of 
marital  desertion  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  March  3, 
1899. 
Division  of  pension — Desertion — Divorce — Separation — Act  of 
March  3, 1899.     (Jones  :r.  Jones,  14  P.  D.,  521.) 

Pensioner's  bill  for  divorce  was  based  upon  the  fact  that  he 
had  been  living  apart  from  claimant  without  any  cohabitation 
for  five  consecutive  years  next  before  his  application.  The 
question  of  marital  desertion  w^as,  therefore,  not  involved  in  the 
judicial  proceedings  or  passed  upon  by  the  court  granting  him 
a  decree  of  divorce. 

Where  a  husband  leaves  his  wife  and  fails  to  contribute  to  her 
support  and  without  procuring  a  divorce  from  her,  or,  believ- 
ing her  to  be  dead,  marries  another  woman,  the  law  will  presume, 
in  the  absence  of  proof  to  the  contrary,  that  he  intended  to  de- 
sert his  wife. 

Pensioner  having  left  claimant  and  the  matrimonial  domicile, 
it  is  incumbent  upon  him  to  show  that  he  was  legally  justified  in 
so  doing,  in  order  to  relieve  himself  of  the  charge  of  desertion. 

So  much  of  the  Bureau  action  of  April  1,  1904,  as  held  that 
"  pensioner  is  not  legally  chargeable  with  marital  desertion  for 
any  period  prior  to  February  17,  1904,"  the  date  on  which  he 
procured  a  divorce  from  claimant  in  Kentucky,  is  not  sustained 
by  the  evidence. 
Division  of  pension — Res  judicata — Desertion — Divorce.  (Tay- 
lor /;.  Taylor,  15  P.  D.,  90.) 

The  judicial  finding  of  facts  of  both  the  Massachusetts  and 
New  Hampshire  courts  is  adverse  to  pensioner's  contention  that 
he  did  not  desert  claimant;  that  she  had  refused  to  live  with 
him,  and  was  not  in  necessitous  circumstances. 

Pensioner  and  claimant  having  submitted  their  domestic  con- 


244  PEI^fSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

troversy,  including  his  alleged  matrimonial  desertion  and  her 
necessitous  circumstances,  to  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction, 
they  are  bound  by  the  judicial  determination  thereof. 

Pensioner's  New  Hampshire  decree  of  divorce  from  claimant 
was  not  only  in  coiiflict  with  the  laws  of  the  Commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts,  Avherein  they  resided,  but  was  also  set  aside  by 
the  New  Hampshire  court. 

Division  of  pension — Desertion — Retroactire  laws.  (Mann  v. 
Mann,  15  P.  D.,  342.) 

The  act  of  March  3,  1899,  amendatory  of  section  4766,  Revised 
Statutes,  is  prospective  in  terms  and  effect,  and  is  not  retroactive 
or  unconstitutional. 

Matrimonial  desertion  is  a  continuous  offense  or  violation  of 
the  marriage  contract,  and  such  desertion,  when  proved,  is  pre- 
sumed to  continue  until  its  termination  is  proved  or  the  contrary 
appears. 

The  fact  that  pensioner  deserted  claimant  prior  to  the  passage 
of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  does  not  defeat  her  right  to  one-half 
his  pension  under  said  act,  provided  the  desertion  continued  for 
over  six  months  subsequent  to  the  passage  of  said  act  and  up  to 
the  date  of  filing  her  application  in  the  Bureau  of  Pensions. 

6.  Pensioner  Divorced. 

Deserted  wife — Act  March  3^  1899 — Divorce — Jurisdiction.  (Eliza 
McKee  i\  James  H.  McKee,  11  P.  D.,  494.) 

It  appearing  from  a  duly  certified  copy  of  the  court  record 
that  pensioner  w^as  divorced  from  the  claimant,  who  seeks  a 
division  of  his  pension  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  prior  to 
filing  such  claim,  the  record  also  showing  that  said  court  ac- 
quired jurisdiction  over  said  alleged  deserted  wife  in  the  suit  for 
said  divorce,  she  was  not  pensioner's  wife,  and  is  not  entitled  to 
receive  one-half  of  his  pension. 

6.  Commencement. 

Division  of  pension  —  C ommencemjent  —  Declaration  —  Notice  — 
Proof — Suspension  of  payment.  (Caroline  Adams  v.  George 
Adams,  12  P.  D.,  370.) 

1.  Appellant  filed  her  claim  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  on 
April  11,  1901,  and  it  having  been  established  that  pensioner  was 
at  that  date  an  inmate  of  a  State  Home,  and  had  been  an  inmate 
of  such  Home  from  the  date  of  the  quarterly  payment  of  his  pen- 
sion preceding  the  filing  of  such  claim,  March  4,  1901,  and  con- 
tinuously since,  and  had  also  deserted  said  claimant  over  six 
months  prior  to  said  quarterly  payment  and  subsequent  to  the 
passage  of  said  act,  and  had  been  in  such  desertion  continuously 


t>ENSIO]^    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  245 

since,  on  the  allowance  of  her  claim  the  payment  of  one-half  of 
such  payment  should  have  commenced  from  said  last  quarterly 
payment,  March  4,  1901,  under  the  decision  in  the  case  of 
Cooper  V.  Cooper  (12  P.  D.,  163). 

2.  The  practice  of  the  Bureau  of  Pensions  in  paying  the  wife 
of  a  pensioner,  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  one-half  only  of 
so  much  of  the  pension  as  remains  in  the  hands  of  the  pension 
agent  on  the  quarterly  payment  day  subsequent  to  the  allowance 
of  the  claim  is  abrogated. 

3.  The  filing  of  a  valid  declaration  for  division  of  pension 
under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  is  notice  to  the  Government  of 
the  claim  for  one-half  of  the  pension  that  may  be  due  or  accruing 
on  said  date,  and  further  j^ayment  of  one-half  the  pension  becom- 
ing due  to  the  pensioner  should  be  suspended  until  the  adjudica- 
tion of  the  claim,  and  for  the  period  thereafter  allowed  for 
appeal,  unless  an  appeal  is  waived. 

4.  A  declaration  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  must  be 
accompanied  by  proof  in  support  thereof  sufficient  to  establish  a 
prima  facie  case  under  the  law. 

5.  The  Bureau  of  Pensions  will  promptly  notify  the  claimant 
and  pensioner  of  the  action  taken  in  a  claim  filed  under  the  act 
of  March  3,  1899,  and  that  thirty  days  from  the  receipt  of  such 
notice  will  be  allowed  in  which  to  file  an  appeal,  during  which 
period  payment  of  one-half  of  the  pension  involved  will  be 
suspended,  unless  an  appeal  is  waived. 

6.  The  face  brief  should  show  the  date  on  which  payment  to 
the  wife  of  one-half  of  her  husband's  pension  commenced. 

7.  Articles  of  Separation. 

Division  of  pension,  act  of  March  -5,  J 899 — Articles  of  separation. 
(Amanda  Crawford  v.  William  H.  Crawford,  12  P.  D.,  304.) 
Claimant,  at  the  date  of  filing  her  claim  for  one-half  of  sol- 
dier's pension  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  was  living  separate 
and  apart  from  her  husband,  pursuant  to  a  mutual  agreement  for 
separation  executed  December  17,  1898,  wdiich  agreement  was  in 
full  force  and  effect.  She  was,  therefore,  not  in  position  to 
charge  her  husband  with  desertion,  as  his  absence  from  her  was 
with  her  consent  and  in  accordance  with  her  express  agreement. 
(Stewart  on  Marriage  and  Divorce,  par.  256;  9  Am.  and  Eng. 
Ency.  L.,  2d  ed.,  767 ;  Stoffer  v.  Stoffer,  50  Mich.,  491 ;  Fleagle  v. 
Fleagle,  12  P.  D.,  67.) 

8.  Domicile. 

Division  of  pension^  act  of  March  3,  1899 — Desertion — Domicile. 
(lona  A.  Pierce  v.  Chester  Pierce,  12  P.  D.,  412.) 
1.  The  refusal  of  the  wife  to  follow  her  husband,  who  had 


246  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-T.AND    CLAIMS. 

deserted  her,  to  another  State  and  leave  her  home  upon  the  mere 
offer  of  her  husband  to  provide  a  home  for  her  does  not  neces- 
saril}^  constitute  her  the  deserter.  (Schouler's  Domestic  Rela- 
tions, 3d  ed.,  par.  38;  Gleason  v.  Gleason,  4  Wis.,  64;  Bishop  v. 
Bishop,  30  Pa.  St.,  412 ;  Hardenberger  v.  Hardenberger,  14  Cal., 
654;  Powell  v.  Powell,  29  Vt.,  148;  Phelan  v.  Phelan,  35  111. 
App.,  511,  and  135  111.,  445.) 

2.  The  desertion  of  the  husband  entitled  the  wife  to  her  own 
domicile.     (Moffatt  v.  Moffatt,  5  Cal.,  281.) 
Division  of  pension — Act  of  March  3,  1899 — Domicile — Evidence. 
(Clarke  v.  Clarke,  14  P.  D.,  479.) 

Claimant  having  been  paid  one-half  her  husband's  pension 
under  an  application  void  because  prematurely  filed,  the  pen- 
sioner is  entitled  to  be  reimbursed  the  one-half  pension  thus 
wrongfully  withheld  from  him,  less  an  overpayment  made  him 
after  his  w^fe  had  filed  a  valid  application  which  was  properly 
allowed  and  to  which  she  was  legally  entitled. 

Where,  after  an  ex  parte  special  examination  of  claimant  and 
her  witnesses,  the  case  is  reopened  and  another  special  examina- 
tion ordered,  of  which  pensioner  is  duly  notified,  but  declines 
to  avail  himself  of  his  right  to  be  present  in  person  or  by  attor- 
ney, he  is  estopped  to  allege  as  error  the  lack  of  notice  in  the 
prior  special  examination. 

Pensioner's  contentions  that  claimant  is  not  his  lawful  wife; 
that  he  did  not  desert  her,  but  that  she  deserted  him,  and  that 
he  did  not  have  notice  of  the  special  examination  or  an  oppor- 
tunity to  present  his  witnesses  and  cross-examine  claimant  and 
her  witnesses,  are  not  sustained  by  the  evidence  in  this  case. 

Claimant,  having  been  deserted  by  her  husband,  was  entitled 
to  her  separate  domicile.  His  marital  duty  required  him  to 
return  to  her  in  order  to  terminate  the  period  of  his  desertion, 
and  if  upon  his  return  to  her  domicile  with  the  offer  to  resume 
marital  relations  she  was  legally  justified  in  refusing  to  accept 
his  offer,  she  is  not  chargeable  with  desertion  by  reason  of  such 
refusal. 

The  fact  that  pensioner  s  suit  against  claimant  for  divorce, 
commenced  in  1900,  is  still  pending,  affords  no  sufficient  reason 
for  further  delaying  the  consideration  of  his  appeal  or  direct- 
ing further  special  examination. 
Division  of  pensions — Evidence — Domicile — Special  examination. 
(Brown  v.  Brown,  15  P.  D.,  14.) 

Claimant's  contention  that  the  Bureau  action  rejecting  her 
claim  was  reached  by  considering  hearsay  and  incompetent  evi- 
dence is  not  apparent  from  an  examination  of  records  and  evi- 
dence in  this  case. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  247 

AVlieie  no  objection  or  exception  was  taken  by  claimant  or  her 
attorney  before  the  special  examiner  to  the  admission  of  any  tes- 
timony the  question  as  to  whether  hearsay  testimony  was  im- 
properly taken  by  the  examiner  can  not  be  raised  for  the  first 
time  on  appeal. 

The  fact  that  claimant  w^as  excluded  from  the  special  exami- 
nation of  two  of  pensioner's  witnesses  by  reason  of  their  objec- 
*on  to  her  presence  in  their  house,  and  their  refusal  to  testify 
elsewhere,  was  not  error,  her  attorney  having  been  present  and 
cross-examined  said  witnesses. 

The  law  recognizes  the  right  of  the  husband  as  the  head  of 
the  family  to  fix  the  matrimonial  domicile,  and  requires  the  wife 
to  follow  the  husband  whenever  he  changes  such  domicile,  under 
penalty  of  being  chargeable  with  desertion  if  she  unreasonably 
or  without  legal  justification  refuses  to  do  so. 

The  evidence  in  this  case  fails  to  show^  that  pensioner  deserted 
claimant  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  as  the 
separation  of  the  parties  was  due  to  claimant's  refusal  to  consent 
to  her  husband's  change  of  domicile. 

9.  Jurisdiction. 

Jurisdiction — Division  of  pension — Act  of  March  3,  1899 — Prac- 
tice.    (Mary  F.  Millard  v.  Isaiah  Millard,  12  P.  D.,  263.) 

Claimant's  declaration  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  alleging 
desertion  by  the  pensioner,  her  husband,  and  claiming  one-half 
of  his  pension,  having  been  filed  April  22,  1899,  less  than  six 
months  after  the  passage  of  said  act,  conferred  no  jurisdiction 
on  the  Commissioner  to  pass  on  the  facts  alleged  in  such  declara- 
tion, the  action  holding  that  appellant  was  not  a  person  of  good 
moral  character  and  rejecting  her  claim  is  reversed.  (See  cases 
of  Rothery  v.  Rothery,  11  P.  D.,  77,  377,  and  Richards  v.  Rich- 
ards, ibid.,  90.) 
Division  of  pension  —  Necessitous  circumstances  —  Jurisdiction. 
(Eliza  Fisher  t\  William  A.  Fisher,  12  P.  D.,  336.) 

A  wife  w^ho  owns  a  house  and  lot  valued  at  $1,150,  a  lot  valued 
at  $65,  household  furniture  valued  at  $50,  has  $150  in  bank,  and 
rents  a  house  for  which  she  pays  $600  per  annum,  and  by  sub 
leasing  of  rooms  supports  herself,  is  not  in  necessitous  circum- 
stances within  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  and  is 
not  entitled  to  one-half  her  husband's  pension  of  $17  per  month, 
he  being  w^ithout  other  means  of  support  than  his  daily  labor. 

The  declaration  filed  by  claimant  July  17,  1899,  for  division 
of  her  husband's  pension  based  on  desertion  was  void  and  con- 
ferred no  jurisdiction  on  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  to  sus- 
pend or  withhold  pension  or  any  portion  thereof,  or  to  pass  upon 


248  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

the  question  of  desertion,  as  the  desertion  named  in  the  act  of 
March  8,  1899,  could  not  exist  until  after  the  expiration  of  six 
months  from  the  passage  of  said  act.  (Rothery  v.  Rothery,  11  P. 
D.,  77,  377;  Richards  r.  Richards,  ibid.,  90;  Henry  M.  Rothery, 
ibid.,  255,  and  Millard  r.  Millard,  12  P.  D.,  262.) 

10.  Residence  in  Soldiers'  Home. 

Diindon  of  pension — Act  March  3,  1899.  Mary  A.  Filones  v. 
Christopher  Filones,  12  P.  D.,  237.) 

Pensioner  was  shown  to  have  been  inmate  of  a  State  Home 
for  soldiers  or  sailors  for  over  two  months  after  the  filing  of  an 
application  by  his  wife  for  division  of  his  pension  under  the 
second  proviso  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899.  The  rejection  of  her 
said  claim  on  the  ground  that  the  pensioner  was  not,  at  the  date 
of  the  adjudication,  an  inmate  of  a  Soldiers'  Home,  was,  there- 
fore, error. 

Division  of  pension — Act  March.  J,  1899 — Residence  in  a  Soldiers^ 
Home.     (Josephine  Medley  v.  John  A.  Medley,  12  P.  D.,  490.) 

Where  a  wife  bases  her  application  for  division  of  her  hus- 
band's pension  on  the  sole  ground  that  he  is  an  inmate  of  a  State 
Home  for  soldiers  or  sailors,  the  question  of  desertion  is  not  in- 
*  volved,  and  the  rejection  of  such  claim,  under  the  act  of  March  3, 
1899,  on  the  ground  that  ''  desertion  complained  of  has  not  ex- 
isted for  six  months,"  is  error. 

Division  of  pension — Act  of  March  3,  1899 — National  Soldiers^ 
Home — Residence.     (Barker  i\  Barker,  15  P.  D.,  56.) 

A  pensioner's  residence  in  a  National  Soldiers'  Home  is  not 
terminated  by  his  temporary  absence  therefrom  on  furlough, 
within  the  intent  of  the  third  proviso  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899, 
and  his  wife  is  entitled  to  one-half  of  his  pension  during  his 
residence  therein,  she  being  in  necessitous  circumstances  and  of 
good  moral  character. 

Division  of  pensions — Act  of  March  3,  1899 — Payment — Soldiers'^ 
Home — Desertion — Practice — Notice.  (Turner  v.  Turner,  15 
P.  D.,  132.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case  fails  to  show  that  pensioner  deserted 
claimant. 

In  a  claim  for  division  of  pension  based  upon  the  first  and 
third  provisos  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  where  the  proof  fails 
to  sustain  the  claim  under  the  first  proviso,  but  does  sustain  the 
claim  under  the  third  proviso,  the  claimant  is  only  entitled  to 
one-half  of  the  pension  drawn  in  pensioner's  behalf  or  to  which 
he  became  entitled  during  his  residence  in  a  National  Soldiers' 
Home. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  249 

AVliere  a  wife  is  allowed  one-half  her  husbaiKrs  pension  under 
the  third  proviso  of  the  act  of  March  3,  181)9,  payment  to  her  to 
cease  at  the  date  of  her  husband's  discharge  from  the  National 
Soldiers'  Home,  and  she  is  duly  advised  of  said  adjudication  by 
the  Bureau,  she  is  not  entitled  to  further  notice  in  order  to  ter- 
minate payment  to  her. 

Neither  a  wife  nor  a  minor  child,  by  securing  an  allowance  of 
one-half  of  a  soldier's  pension  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of 
March  3,  1899,  thereby  becomes  a  pensioner  or  entitled  to  thirty 
days'  notice  of  termination  of  payment  thereof. 

The  question  of  marital  desertion,  so  far  as  it  involves  the 
wife's  right  to  one-half  of  her  husband's  pension  under  the  second 
or  third  proviso  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  is  immaterial. 

An  allowance  of  a  claim  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  with- 
out stating  the  date  on  which  the  division  of  pension  will  com- 
mence, is  error. 

11.  Failure  to  Prosecute. 

Division  of  pensions — Failure  to  prosecute — Rejection.  (Harriet 
Randall  /'.  Jacob  Randall,  13  P.  D.,  411.) 

Claimant  filed  her  application  March  13,  1902,  for  one-half  her 
husband's  pension  and  delayed  for  over  a  year  to  file  any  evidence 
in  support  thereof.  The  rejection  of  her  said  application  by  the 
Bureau  March  10,  1903,  on  the  ground  that  she  had  failed  to 
furnish  any  evidence  in  support  of  her  claim,  was  not  error. 

Justice  to  the  pensioner  as  w^ell  as  to  the  meritorious  claimant 
requires  that  there  be  no  unnecessary  delay  in  the  prosecution 
and  adjudication  of  claims  under  the  first  three  provisos  of  the 
act  of  March  3,  1899. 

Affidavits  as  to  the  merits  of  the  claim,  filed  after  an  appeal  to 
the  Department  from  the  final  action  of  the  Bureau  of  Pensions, 
can  not  be  properly  considered  on  appeal.  (See  rule  19  of 
Practice.) 

Since  May  21,  1902,  claimants  for  division  of  pension  under  the 
act  of  March  3,  1899,  are  required  to  file  with  their  declarations 
proof  in  support  thereof  of  sufficient  evidence  to  establish  a  prima 
facie  case  under  said  act. 

See  departmental  decision  in  the  case  of  x^idams  v.  Adams  (12 
^        P.  D.,  370-378)  and  Bureau  order  of  May  21,  1902. 

12.  Marriage. 

Diimion  of  pension — Act  of  March  3, 1890 — Marriage — Evidence- 
Proof.     (Delia  M.  Forbin  v.  Joseph  C.  Forbin,  13  P.  D.,  120.) 

Under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Ohio  claimant  has  proved  a 
valid  subsisting  legal  marriage  with  pensioner. 


250  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

The  evidence  also  shows  that  pensioner  deserted  chiiniant  for 
more  than  six  months  prior  to  February  0,  1902,  the  date  on 
which  she  filed  her  application;  that  she  is  a  woman  of  good 
moral  character  and  in  necessitous  circumstances. 

Division  of  peiision — Act  of  March  3,  1899 — Desertion — Evi- 
dence— Marriage.  (Mary  Brobst  r.  Henry  Brobst,  13  P.  D., 
218.) 

Pensioner's  contention  that  claimant  drove  him  from  home 
by  her  abusive  language  rests  solely  upon  his  own  testimony 
and  is  not  sustained,  but  is  outweighed  by  other  evidence  in  the 
case. 

Pensioner's  ceremonial  marriage  to  claimant  in  the  State  of 
Indiana  in  1856  is  not  shown  to  be  illegal  because  of  claimant's 
prior  marriage  in  said  State  in  1846,  or  her  subsequent  marriage 
to  one  Hansford  Brown  in  said  State  of  Indiana  in  1875,  with 
whom  she  cohabited  until  his  death;  nor  by  pensioner's  subse- 
quent mariage  in  1869,  as  the  evidence  shows  that  claimant's 
marriage  to  pensioner  was  valid  and  has  not  been  dissolved  by 
death  or  divorce,  thus  outweighing  the  legal  presumptions  in 
favor  of  the  last  marriages. 

Division  of  pension — Act  March  ^,  1899 — Evidence — Marriage. 
(Margery  Sharkey  v.  John  Sharkey,  13  P.  D.,  297.) 

Pensioner's  contention  that  he  was  never  married  to  claimant 
and  that  she  is  not  his  lawful  wife  is"  not  sustained  by  the  evi- 
dence, which  fairly  establishes  a  valid  marriage  under  the  laws 
of  Pennsylvania. 
Desertion — Minor — Act  March  3,  1899 — Divorce.  (Nancy  Dunn, 
guardian  of  Freddie  Dunn,  v.  Charles  H.  Dunn,  13  P.  D.,  422.) 

Pensioner  deserted  his  minor  child,  aged  8  months,  April  17, 
1894,  since  which  time  he  has  failed  to  in  any  manner  contribute 
to  its  support. 

The  fact  that  pensioner's  wife,  and  mother  of  their  said  minor 
child,  procured  a  divorce  from  pensioner  March  11,  1898,  on  the 
ground  of  desertion,  and  was  by  the  court  awarded  the  ''  care, 
custody,  and  education  "  of  their  said  child,  does  not  break  the 
continuity  of  pensioner's  desertion  of  the  child  or  release  him 
from  his  parental  duty  to  aid  in  its  maintenance  and  support, 
he  being  the  party  at  fault. 

Division  of  pension — Divorce  decree — Evidence — Fraud — Practice. 
(Nancy  E.  Lynch  v.  Philip  Lynch,  13  P.  D.,  347.) 

A  decree  of  divorce  valid  on  its  face  should  be  accepted  as  con- 
clusive of  the  marital  status  so  long  as  the  parties  to  the  suit 
are  alive  and  the  courts  open  to  them.  See  Cooper  v.  Cooper  (13 
P.  D.,  208)  and  Powell  v.  Powell  (13  P.  D.,  236). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  251 

13.  Necessitous  Circumstances. 

Dimsion  of  ])eamon — Act  March  3,  1899 — Necessitous  circum- 
.stances — Desertion.  (Sarah  J.  Diistin  v.  Albert  M.  Dustin,  18 
P.  D.,T7.)       • 

Pensioner  aged  61  years,  well  nourished,  not  wholly  incapaci- 
tated from  earning  his  support  by  manual  labor,  is  in  receipt 
of  an  income  of  $204  per  annum. 

Claimant  is  58  years  of  age,  in  poor  health,  with  one  minor 
child  under  16  years  of' age  dependent  upon  her  for  support.  She 
is  possessed  of  real  estate  assessed  at  $300  cash  valuation  and 
personal  property  valued  at  about  $50. 

•  Held:  That  claimant  is  shown  to  be  in  "necessitous  circum- 
stances ''  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  March  8,  1899.  (See 
departmental  decisions  in  the  case  of  Fisher  /'.  P'isher,  12  P.  D., 
386,  and  Pierce  v.  Pierce,  ibid.,  412-^15.) 

The  evidence  further  shows  that  pensioner  deserted  claimant 
for  more  than  eight  years  prior  to  July  30,  1900,  the  date  on 
which  she  filed  her  application  for  one-half  his  pension  under 
the  act  of  March  3,  1899;  that  said  desertion  has  been  con- 
tinuous, and  that  she  is  a  woman  of  good  moral  character. 

Held:  That  claimant  is  entitled  to  one-half  her  husband's 
pension  due  or  to  become  due  said  pensioner  on  and  after  July 
30,  1900  (deducting  payments  made  her  under  the  Bureau 
adjudication  of  April  29,  1901),  in  accordance  with  the  depart- 
mental decision  in  the  case  of  Adams  r.  Adams  (12  P.  D.,  370). 
(See  also  the  case  of  Cooper  /'.  Cooper,  ibid.,  163.) 
Necessitous  circumstances — Act  of  March  3,  1899 — Evidence. 
(Martha  Ashley  tK  John  F.  Ashley,  18  P.  D.,  205.) 

The  adjudication  and  allowance  of  a  claim  under  the  act  of 
March  8,  1899,  in  the  absence  of  any  testimony  that  the  claimant 
is  in  necessitous  circumstances,  is  clearly  error. 
Division  of  peiision — Act  March   3,  1899 — Evidence — Attorneys. 
(Mary  E.  Parker  v.  Jackson  Parker,  13  P.  D.,  283.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case  fails  to  satisfactorily  show  that 
claimant  is  in  necessitous  circumstances  within  the  meaning  of 
the  act  of  March  3,  1899.  Attorneys  prohibited  from  appearing 
for  both  parties  in  contested  cases  under  act  of  March  3,  1899. 
Division  of  pension — Act  March  3,  1899 — Necessitous  circum- 
stances. (Sarah  E.  Daugherty  i\  William  Doherty,  18  P.  D., 
802.) 

Claimant  in  the  possession  of  $2,800  worth  of  real  and  personal 
estate  is  not  in  necessitous  circumstances  within  the  meaning  of 
the  act  of  March  8,  1899,  her  husband  being  over  77  years  of  age 
and  his  means  of  support  limited  to  his  pension  of  $10  per  month. 


252  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Division  of  pension — Act  March  3,  1899 — Necessitous  circmn- 
stances.     (Hunter  r.  Hunter,  14  P.  I).,  K3G.) 

By  the  term  "  necessitous  circumstances  ■'  in  the  act  of  March 
3,  1899,  as  applied  to  the  condition  of  the  wife,  is  meant  her  need 
of  those  necessaries  which  are  suitable  to  her  situation  and  her 
husband's  condition  in  life,  and  which  he  is  bound  to  provide, 
or  for  which  he  is  liable  on  an  implied  contract  in  case  he  fails  to 
provide. 

The  financial,  physical,  and  social  condition  of  the  pensioner 
are  facts  to  be  considered  in  connection  with  the  other  facts  in  the 
case  in  determining  the  actual  necessitous  condition  of  the  claim- 
ant under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899. 

Pensioner  is  81  years  of  age,  wholly  incapacitated  for  earning 
his  support  by  manual  labor,  and  with  no  means  of  support  aside 
from  his  pension  of  $12  per  month. 

Claimant  is  57  years  of  age,  able  to  earn  $4  per  week  by 
manual  labor,  the  owner  of  a  160-acre  farm,  valued  by  her  and 
her  witnesses  at  over  $1,500,  subject  to  a  mortgage  of  $450,  the 
rental  value  of  the  farm  being  about  $160  in  1902. 

Held:  Claimant  is  not  in  necessitous  circumstances  within  the 
meaning  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  and  her  claim  was  properly 
rejected. 

Division  of  pension — Necessitous  circumstances — Evidence.  (Vog- 
ler  V.  Vogler,  14  P.  D.,  385.) 

Claimant,  54  years  of  age,  is  in  the  sole  and  undisputed 
possession  and  enjoyment  of  a  homestead  in  the  State  of  New 
York,  valued  at  $1,()00;  has  $50  in  cash,  and  has  received  from 
pensioner  $50  July  10,  1903,  and  $20  September  IG,  1903. 

The  title  to  the  real  property,  which  is  unencumbered,  is 
jointly  in  claimant  and  pensioner,  their  interests  being  that  of 
tenants  by  the  entirety. 

Pensioner,  66  years  of  age,  is  not  shown  to  be  in  possession 
of  any  means  of  support  other  than  his  interest  in  said  home- 
stead, his  pension  of  $12  per  month,  and  the  right  to  admission 
to  a  Soldiers'  Home. 

Held :  That  claimant  is  not  shown  to  be  in  necessitous  cir- 
cumstances within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899. 

Division  of  pension — Necessitous  circumstances — Estoppel — Mar- 
riage— Missouri.  (Meister  (formerly  Jordan)  v.  Jordan,  15 
P.  D.,  246.) 

Claim  was  rejected  on  the  ground  that  claimant  was  not  in 
necessitous  circumstances.  Other  points  not  considered.  Claim- 
ant married  soldier  in  1862,  and  subsequently  married  one 
Meister  in  1865,  and  lived  with  him  as  his  wife  until  his  death 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  258 

in  June,   1890.     Said  Meister  left  her  a  homestead,  vakied  at 
from  $1,000  to  $1,*200,  which  affords  her  a  home  and  support. 

Held:  That  as  claimant  is  enjoying  property  left  her  by  her 
second  husband,  Meister,  affording  her  a  support,  she  is  not  in 
necessitous  circumstances,  and  that  claimant  by  her  conduct  is 
estopped  from  denying  the  validity  of  her  second  marriage  or 
her  right  and  interest  in  and  to  the  property  now  held  and  en- 
joyed by  her  by  virtue  of  said  second  marriage  for  the  purpose 
of  establishing  title  to  one-half  of  her  first  husband's  pension. 

Division  of  pension — Cruelty — Insanity — Desertion — Act  of  March 
3,  1899.     (Green  v.  Green,  15  P.  D.,  450.) 

A  persistent  course  of  jealous  conduct  on  the  part  of  the 
husband;  falsely  charging  his  wife  with  immorality  in  the 
presence  of  their  children ;  attempting  to  'restrain  her  of  her 
liberty  without  just  cause,  and  threatening  her  with  corporal 
punishment  amounts,  under  the  law  of  the  State  of  Missouri, 
to  "  such  indignities  "  as  to  render  her  "  condition  intolerable," 
and  legally  justifies  her  in  refusing  to  resume  marital  relations 
suspended  by  reason  of  his  said  misconduct. 

Where  the  course  of  conduct  of  one  of  the  married  parties 
toward  the  other  is  cruel,  and  such  as  would  naturally  tend  to 
drive  such  other  from  the  matrimonial  home  and  destroy  or 
terminate  all  conjugal  relations  between  them,  the  party  guilty  of 
such  misconduct  is  estopped  to  deny  or  assert  that  he  did  not 
intend  the  natural,  logical,  and  reasonable  result  thereof. 

Whether  the  insanity  of  the  husband  will  excuse  the  acts  of 
cruelty  or  desertion  depends  upon  whether  he  was  capable  of 
understanding  the  nature  and  consequences  of  the  acts  charged 
at  the  time  of  their  commission.  Sanity  is  presumed  until  the 
contrary  is  shown  by  evidence,  and  the  law  does  not  excuse 
unless  insanity  is  of  such  a  character  as  to  actually  render  the 
person  incapable  of  distinguishing  between  right  and  wrong  in 
respect  to  the  acts  committed. 

Division  of  pension  -Act  of  March  3,  1899 — Necessitous  circum- 
stances.    (Raymond  /'.  Raymond,  15  P.  D.,  49G.) 

Claimant  contends  that  her  life  estate  in  an  undivided  one- 
half  interest  in  the  land  upon  which  she  and  her  daughter  lived 
was  terminated  under  the  terms  of  her  deceased  husband's  will 
by  her  marriage  to  pensioner. 

The  will,  however,  provided  that  in  case  she  should  "  marry 
and  at  any  time  thereafter  should  become  single  by  desertion 
or  death  or  choice  then  the  place  (the  land  upon  which  she  and 
her  daughter  lives)  shall  be  an  undivided  home  in  comforts  or 
profits  for  both." 


254  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Held:  That  claimant  having  married  pensioner,  who  subse- 
quently deserted  her,  she  is  entitled  to  all  the  rights  and  title 
under  said  will  to  which  she  was  entitled  prior  to  her  marriage 
to  pensioner,  but  which  were  suspended  at  the  time  of  her  said 
marriage  and  continued  suspended  only  during  the  period  she 
was  living  with  pensioner. 

14.  Payment. 

Division  of  pension — Act  March  J,  1899 — Payment — Treasurer  of 
Soldiers^  Home.  (Mary  Jane  Tilton,  r.  Kichard  R.  Tilton,  13 
P.  D.,  3G3.) 

The  provision  in  the  third  proviso  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899, 
that  one-half  the  pension  ''  shall  be  paid  by  the  treasurer  "  is 
limited  to  those  cases  where  the  treasurer  of  a  National  Soldiers' 
Home  has  in  his  possession  funds  from  which  the  payment 
ordered  by  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  can  be  made,  and  if 
for  any  reason  the  treasurer  has  no  such  funds  and  the  pensioner 
has  ceased  to  be  an  inmate  of  the  Home,  then  the  one-half  of  the 
pension  to  which  claimant  under  said  act  is  shown  to  be  entitled 
should  be  withheld  from  future  accruing  pension  and  paid  claim- 
ant by  the  United  States  pension  agent  under  the  direction  of  the 
Commissioner  of  Pensions. 

Where  through  administrative  error  or  mistake  the  pensioner 
has  been  paid  the  one-half  his  pension,  to  which  his  wife  has  duly 
established  her  legal  title,  the  amount  thus  erroneously  paid  him 
should  be  withheld  from  his  accruing  pension  and  paid  to  the 
wife  under  the  provision  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  subject  to 
the  limitation  of  Rule  16  of  Practice. 

15.  Practice. 

Division  of  pension — Act  of  March  3,  1899 — Practice — Dismissal. 
(Sarah  E.  Kilmer  r.  John  Kilmer,  13  P.  D.,  270.) 

An  application  under  the  first  proviso  of  the  act  of  March  3, 
1899,  void  because  prematurely  filed ;  the  question  of  desertion  is 
immaterial. 

Pensioner's  contention  having  been  conceded  by  the  Bureau 
and  the  $225  pension  unlawfully  withheld  from  him  having 
been  directed  to  be  paid  him  January  7,  1903,  his  appeal  from 
the  Bureau  action  of  April  2,  1900,  is  dismissed. 

Division  of  j)ensions — Evidence — Practice — Rule  19 — Desertion. 
(Alice  Irene  Crume  v.  George  M.  Crume,  13  P.  D.,  424.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case  fails  to  satisfactorily  show  marital 
desertion  on  the  part  of  pensioner,  or  that  claimant  is  not  respon- 
sible for  the  separation. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  255 

The  provision  of  Rule  of  Practice  19  that  "  No  additional  evi- 
dence upon  the  merits  of  the  claim  should  be  filed  by  either  appel- 
lant or  api^ellee,  or  considered  on  appeal,"  does  not  apply  to 
affidavits  filed  prior  to  the  appeal,  and  which  Avere  passed  upon 
by  the  Bureau. 

Din'mon  of  j^enmon — xict  March  3,  1899 — Practice.  (Bowman  v. 
Bowman,  14  P.  D.,  120.) 

Rule  10  of  Practice  before  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions, 
allowing  ninety  days  in  which  to  furnish  evidence  called  for  by 
the  Bureau,  is  not  applicable  to  cases  for  division  of  pension 
under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899.  (See  Rules  of  Practice,  of  May 
21,  1902,  as  amended  by  Order  No.  69,  of  May  20,  1903,  pars.  14 
and  15;   Hyatt  v.  Hyatt,  14  P.  D.) 

Claimant  delayed  for  over  thirty  days  to  furnish  the  evidence 
called  for  by  the  Bureau,  and  made  no  application  for  extension 
of  time.  The  rejection  of  her  claim  on  the  evidence  then  on 
file,  which  failed  to  establish  her  necessitous  circumstances, 
within  the  meaning  of  said  act,  was  not  error. 

The  evidence  in  this  case  fails  to  show  that  claimant  is  in 
necessitous  circumstances,  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of 
March  3,  1899. 

Dimsion  of  pension — Act  March  3, 1899 — Practice.  (Washburn  v. 
Washburn,  14  P.  D.,  127.) 

Where  claimant  delayed  for  over  tw^o  months  to  file  the  nec- 
essary evidence,  called  for  by  the  Bureau,  to  establish  her  claim 
under  the  first  proviso  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  the  rejection 
of  her  said  claim  will  not  be  reversed  because  she  has  subse- 
quently filed  the  evidence  called  for,  her  laches  being  unex- 
plained, and  no  application  for  extension  of  time  having  been 
made  to  the  Bureau. 

Claimant  having  failed  to  complete  her  claim,  it  was  properly 
rejected  under  paragraph  15  of  Order  No.  69,  approved  May  20, 
1903. 

Division  of  pension — Desertion — Decree— Res  judicata.  (Bur- 
dette  V.  Burdette,  alias  Oakley,  14  P.  D.,  146.) 

Claimant  having  left  her  husband  and  the  matrimonial  domi- 
cile, it  is  incumbent  upon  her  to  show  by  satisfactory  evidence 
that  she  was  legally  justified  in  her  said  separation  in  order  to 
establish  marital  desertion  on  the  part  of  the  husband. 

Claimant  having  submitted  her  domestic  controversy  to  the 
courts,  she  is  bound  by  their  judicial  decisions  therein,  no  appeal 
having  been  taken  therefrom. 

An  unsworn  petition  can  not  be  considered  in  the  adjudication 


256  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

of  claims  for  the  division  of  pension  under  the  act  of  March  8, 
1899. 

The  evidence  in  this  case  fails  to  establish  desertion  on  the  part 
of  pensioner,  as  the  separation  appears  to  have  resulted  from 
domestic  discord  and  a  mutual  desire  for  separation. 

Separation,  to  constitute  desertion,  must  be  against  the  will  of 
the  innocent  party. 
Division  of  pension — Practice — Special  examiners,   (Buck  /'.  Buck, 
14  P.  D.,  150.) 

Pensioner's  sole  assignment  of  error  in  his  appeal  is  that  the 
special  examiner  failed  and  refused  to  take  the  depositions  of  his 
eleven  impeaching  witnesses. 

Held:  That  said  assignment  is  defective  in  that  it  fails  to  show 
that  any  application  had  been  made  to  the  Commissioner  of 
Pensions  for  an  examination  of  said  witnesses,  and  refused  by 
the  Commissioner,  and  for  the  further  reason  that  the  appeal 
fails  to  allege  that  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses,  sought  to  be 
impeached,  was  untrue. 

Appellant  alleged  no  error  before  the  special  examiner,  and 
took  no  exceptions  to  his  rulings,  and  the  question  as  to  whether 
the  examiner  properly  exercised  his  discretion  in  conducting  the 
examination  can  not,  against  the  objection  of  appellee,  be  per- 
mitted to  be  first  raised  on  appeal. 

Neither  claimant  nor  pensioner,  in  claims  under  the  act  of 
March  3,  1899,  is  entitled,  as  a  legal  right,  to  the  services  of  a 
special  examiner. 
Divisio7i    of    pension — Marriage — Divorce — Jurisdiction.      (Mor- 
ley  V.  Morley,  14  P.  D.,  230.) 

1.  Pensioner  having  submitted  the  question  of  the  validity  of 
his  marriage  with  claimant  to  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction, 
he  is  bound  by  the  final  judicial  determination  the.reof,  no  appeal 
having  been  taken  therefrom. 

2.  The  evidence  in  this  case  fairly  establishes  the  facts  neces- 
sary to  prove  claimant's  title  to  one-half  her  husband's  pension 
under  the  first  proviso  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  viz,  that  she 
is  the  lawful  wife  of  pensioner ;  that  he  had  deserted  her  for  over 
six  months  immediately  prior  to  the  date  on  which  she  filed  her 
application  under  said  act;  that  she  is  a  woman  of  good  moral 
character  and  in  necessitous  circumstances. 

Division  of  pension — Evidence — Marriage — Practice.     (Wardwell 
V.  Wardwell,  14  P.  D.,  234.) 

Where  claimant  has  filed  a  valid  declaration  under  the  first 
proviso  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  with  proof  in  support 
thereof  sufficient  to  establish  a  prima  facie  case  under  the  law, 
and  no  evidence  is  filed  by  pensioner  after  due  notice  of  said 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  257 

claim,  the  rejection  of  her  claim  on  the  ground  that  she  ''  has 
failed  to  furnish  the  evidence  necessary  to  establish  her  title 
within  the  meaning  of  the  act  "  is  error. 

It  is  a  rule  of  evidence,  recognized  and  enforced  by  Federal 
and  State  courts  generally,  that  a  party  attacking  a  duly  estab- 
lished marriage  on  the  ground  that  one  of  the  parties  to  such 
marriage  was  incompetent  to  contract  the  marriage  by  reason  of 
a  prior  subsisting  marriage  must  not  only  prove  a  valid  prior 
marriage,  but  also  that  it  has  not  been  dissolved  in  any  manner 
at  the  time  of  the  subsequent  marriage,  even  though  it  involved 
the  proving  of  a  negative ;  that  every  presumption  is  in  favor  of 
the  validity  of  the  established  marriage,  and  all  these  presump- 
tions must  be  overcome  by  satisfactory,  irrefragable  proof,  the 
burden  of  proof  being  upon  the  party  attacking  the  marriage. 

Legal  wifehood  is  established,  prima  facie,  under  act  of  March 
3,  1899,  by  proof  of  marriage  under  the  general  rules  of  evidence 
applicable  thereto,  and  claimants  are  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the 
presumptions  in  favor  of  marriage. 
Division  of  Pension — Practice — Rule  16 — Act  of  March  3,  J 899. 
White  V.  Wliite,  14  P.  D.,  313.) 

'\^niere  a  claim  for  division  of  pension  based  upon  a  declara- 
tion alleging  six  months'  desertion,  under  the  first  proviso  of 
the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  was  properly  rejected  on  the  ground 
that  the  statutory  desertion  of  six  months  was  not  established, 
and  claimant  was  subsequently  allowed  a  claim  under  a  subse- 
quent declaration  based  upon  the  second  proviso  of  said  act, 
the  question  of  desertion  was  not  in  issue  under  said  second 
declaration,  and  can  not  be  considered  on  appeal. 

A  declaration  based  upon  the  second  proviso  of  the  act  of 
March  3,  1899,  will  not  justify  an  allowance  of  a  claim  for  divi- 
sion of  pension  under  the  first  proviso  of  said  act. 

Rule  16  of  Practice  does  not,  and  was  not  designed  to,  deprive 
either  party  of  the  right  of  appeal  after  thirty  days ;  but  unless 
the  appeal  is  filed  within  thirty  days  from  the  receipt  of  notice 
of  the  Bureau  action,  payments  of  pension  made  in  accordance 
with  such  Bureau  action  will  not  be  affected  by  the  appeal,  in  the 
absence  of  fraud  or  mistake  of  fact. 
Division  of  Pension — Practice — Reimbursement — Act  of  March 
3, 1899.     (Frederick  W.  Hyatt,  14  P.  D.,  367.)  , 

Prior  to  the  adoption  of  any  rules  of  practice  governing  appeal 
from  Bureau  actions  in  cases  arising  under  the  first  three  pro- 
visos of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  and  prior  to  departmental 
decisions  in  the  case  of  Ellis  v.  Ellis  (11  P.  D.,  288),  pensioner 
filed  an  appeal,  February  18,  1901,  from  the  Bureau  action  of 

13070—06 17 


258  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

September  6,  1900,  allowing  his  wife  one-half  his  pension  on  the 
ground  of  his  desertion  of  her.  On  August  27,  1901,  he  made 
due  proof  of  service  of  a  copy  of  his  appeal  upon  the  appellee. 

Held:  That  said  proof  of  service  was,  in  the  absence  of  any 
rule  of  practice  to  the  contrary,  an  amendment  of  his  original 
appeal,  nunc  pro  tunc,  and  constituted  a  valid  appeal  from  the 
date  of  filing. 

Said  appeal  having  been  accepted  and  docketed  as  of  the  date 
of  filing,  the  Bureau  should  have  suspended  payment  to  the 
wife  of  the  one-half  of  the  pension  in  controversy  February  18, 
1901,  and  pending  the  consideration  of  the  appeal,  and  the  con- 
tinuation of  the  payment  of  one-half  his  pension  to  his  wife 
subsequent  thereto  was  error. 

Said  appeal  having  been  sustained  by  the  Department,  and  the 
Bureau  action  of  September  6,  1900,  appealed  from  having  been 
reversed  March  18,  1902,  on  the  ground  that  the  evidence  failed 
to  show  that  pensioner  had  deserted  his  wife  within  the  meaning 
of  said  act  of  March  8,  1899,  he  is  entitled  to  restoration  of  all 
pension  money  accruing  subsequent  to  the  last  quarterly  payment 
next  preceding  February  18,  1901,  which  may  have  been  with- 
held from  him. 

Pensioner  having  delayed  for  over  five  months  to  appeal  from 
the  Bureau  action  of  September  6,  1900,  he  will  be  held  to  have 
waived  his  right  to  reimbursement  of  payments  made  the  wife 
prior  to  his  appeal,  the  Bureau  having  had  complete  jurisdiction 
of  the  claim  on  the  part  of  the  wife  and  the  Bureau  error  being 
one  of  judgment  or  opinion  merely,  no  error  of  law,  fraud,  or 
mistake  of  fact  being  involved. 

Division — Act  of  March  3,  1899 — Practice — Appeal.  (Elliott  ?'. 
Elliott,  MP.  D.,  472.) 

The  assignments  of  error  in  this  case  are  general,  not  specific, 
as  required  by  Rule  19  of  Practice,  which  requires  that  the  appeal 
should  briefly,  but  specifically,  state  the  error  of  law  or  fact  com- 
plained of  and  the  grounds  relied  upon  for  reversing  or  modi- 
fying the  Bureau  action  appealed  from. 

This  is  a  rule  of  order  and  convenience  based  upon  the  recog- 
nized right  of  the  appellee  to  .actual  notice  of  the  appeal  and 
information  as  to  the  grounds  relied  upon  by  the  appellant  for 
reversing  or  modifying  the  Bureau  action. 

Good  practice,  as  well  as  justice  and  fairness  to  appellees,  the 
Bureau,  and  this  Department,  requires  a  compliance  Avith  the 
requirements  of  said  rule  in  cases  arising  under  the  act  of  March 
3,  1899. 

For  noncompliance  with  said  Rule  19  of  Practice,  requiring 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  259 

specific  assignments  of  error,  the  appeal  is,  on  motion  of  attor- 
ney for  appellee,  dismissed. 

The  defect  in  the  appeal  is  not  cured  by  the  brief  in  this  case. 
Division  of  pension — Res  judicata — Practice.     (Smith  ik  Smith, 
15  P.  D.,  111.) 

In  contested  cases  for  division  of  pension  under  the  act  of 
March  3,  1899,  the  Bureau  having  jurisdiction  thereof,  where  an 
issue  of  fact  is  joined  between  the  claimant  and  pensioner  the 
adjudication  by  the  Bureau  on  said  issue  should  be  final,  subject 
to  the  right  of  appeal,  and  in  the  absence  of  fraud,  error  in  law, 
mistake  of  fact,  or  newly  discovered  evidence  conclusively  settle 
the  question  at  issue  and  preclude  the  claimant  from  subsequently 
filing  another  application  under  the  same  law,  based  upon  the 
same  facts. 

To  such  cases  the  doctrine  of  res  ad  judicata  applies. 

The  duplicate  copies  of  departmental  decisions  prepared  by 
this  Department  and  transmitted  to  the  Bureau  with  the  decision 
in  cases  appealed  from  Bureau  action  arising  under  the  first 
three  provisos  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  should  be  promptly 
forwarded  by  the  Bureau  to  the  claimant  and  pensioner  or  their 
attorneys. 
Division  of  pension — Act  of  March  3,  1809 — Practice — Appeal — 
Rule  19,     (Jackson  v.  Jackson,  15  P.  D.,  218.) 

An  assignment  of  error  in  an  appeal  from  Bureaii  action  in  a 
claim  for  division  of  pension  which  merely  alleges  that  "  the 
evidence  adduced  in  this  case  is  not  sufficient  to  establish  the 
appellant's  desertion  of  his  wife,  either  as  a  matter  of  fact  or 
as  a  matter  of  law,"  is  general  and  not  specific,  as  required  by 
rule  19  of  practice,  and  unless  the  defect  is  waived  by  the  appel- 
lee and  this  Department,  justifies  a  dismissal  of  the  appeal. 
Division  of  pension — Practice — Appeals — Evidence.  (Raymond  v. 
Raymond,  15  P.  D.,  298.) 

In  view  of  the  unsatisfactory  character  of  the  ex  parte  testi- 
mony in  this  case  as  to  the  alleged  desertion  of  claimant  by  pen- 
sioner and  her  course  of  conduct  in  relation  thereto,  the  papers 
are  returned  for  a  special  examination,  readjudication,  and 
report. 

The  last  paragraph  of  rule  14  of  the  Rules  of  Pra«tice, 
amended  August  6,  1903,  was  not  designed  to  apply  to  appeals 
from  Bureau  action  in  cases  arising  under  the  first,  second,  and 
third  provisos  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899. 
Division  of  pension — Act  of  March  3,  1899 — Desertion — Res  judi- 
cata.    (Crowley  r.  Crowley,  15  P.  D.,  557.) 

The  rule  announced  in  the  case  of  ^Burdette  v,  Burdette  (14 


260  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

P.  D.,  14(5),  that  "claimant,  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899, 
having  submitted  her  domestic  controversy  to  the  courts,  is  bound 
by  their  judicial  decree  therein,''  is  not  aj^plicable  to  judicial 
decisions  in  criminal  cases  where  the  question  involved  was  crim- 
inal desertion. 

The  record  of  acquittal  of  a  defendant  in  a  criminal  case  is 
not  a  defense  to  an  action  against  him  by  an  individual  and  can 
neither  be  plead  nor  offered  in  evidence  as  a  l)ar. 

It  is  only  such  facts  as  are  involved  in  the  issue  and  essential 
to  the  judgment  or  decree  that  are  deemed  legally  established 
and  which  can  not  be  retried  in  any  subsequent  action  or  pro- 
ceeding between  the  same  parties. 

16.  Separation. 

Desertion — Act    of    March     -i,    1899 — Cohahitatioii — Separation. 
(Anna  C.  Fritts  v,  Curtis  M.  Fritts,  13  P.  D.,  24.) 

Voluntary  cohabitation  of  husband  and  wife  after  entering 
into  an  agreement  for  immediate  separation  operates  as  a  mutual 
rescission  of  the  agreement.  (Bishop  on  Marriage,  Divorce,  and 
Separation,  vol.  1,  par.  1302,  and  note  3;  Stewart  on  Marriage 
and  Divorce,  par.  191,  and  note  3;  Bouvier's  Law  Dictionary, 
vol.  2,  p.  580;  Kehr  v.  Smith,  20  Wall.,  31;  note  to  case  of 
Stephenson  v.  Osborne,  90  Am.  Dec,  369.) 

Desertion — Separation — Eoidence — Act  March  3,  1899.     (Frances 
Whitney  v.  William  AV.  Whitney,  13  P.  D.,  301.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case  fails  to  show  that  pensioner  deserted 
claimant  or  that  she  was  legally  justified  in  leaving  him.  Sepa- 
ration by  mutual  consent  is  not  desertion.     (Harris  v.  Harris, 

12  P.  D.,  7-12;   Coats  v.  Coats,  ibid.,  507,  and  Smith  o.  Smith, 

13  P.  D.,  177.) 

17.  Evidence. 

Division  of  pension — Act  of  March  3, 1899 — Evidence.     (Crissey  v. 
Crissey,  14  P.  D.,  334.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case,  filed  by  pensioner  as  a  basis  for 
reopening  of  claim,  is  not  newly  discovered,  but  is  mainly  cumu- 
lative in  character,  and  the  affiants  and  pensioner  testify  to  a 
legal  conclusion  rather  than  to  the  facts  upon  which  they  base 
their  conclusions. 

18.  Moral  Character. 

Moral   character— Act   of   March   3^   1899— Evidence.     (Augusta 
Christopher  v.  George  C.  Christopher,  13  P.  D.,  383.) 

To  entitle  a  wife  to  one-half  her  husband's  pension  under  the 
act  of  March  3,  1899,  she  is  required  to  establish  the  fact  that 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  261 

she  is  a  ^Yoman  of  good  moral  character  by  satisfactory  affirma- 
tive proof,  and  can  not  rest  this  branch  of  her  claim  upon  the 
legal  presumption  that  ''  in  the  absence  of  proof  to  the  contrary 
a  person's  character  is  presumed  to  l)e  good." 

The  testimony  as  to  claimant's  good  moral  character  is  not 
outweighed  by  the  fact  that  after  the  alleged  marital  desertion 
claimant,  in  answer  to  her  advertisement  for  a  position  as  house- 
keeper, entered  into  the  service  of  a  man  whose  wife  procured  a 
divorce  from  him  on  account  of  adultery  with  a  previous  house- 
keeper, no  immoral  act  or  undue  familiarity  on  the  part  of 
claimant  being  shown  during  her  entire  residence  with  him  of 
over  two  years. 

The  decree  of  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction  dismissing  pen- 
sioner's bill  for  divorce  on  its  merits,  in  conformity  with  the 
report  of  the  referee  duly  appointed  to  take  testimony  and  re- 
port, the  bill  being  based  on  adultery  alleged  to  have  been  com- 
mitted by  claimant  with  her  said  employer  during  her  said 
residence  wath  him,  is  accepted  by  the  Department  in  this  case 
as  satisfactory  and  conclusive  evidence  that  her  relations  with 
her  said  employer  were  not  adulterous. 

Division  of  pension — Marriage — Moral  character.  (Sarah  Post  v. 
Franklin  M.  Post,  14  P.  D.,  177.) 

The  mere  fact  that  claimant  married  a  second  husband  under 
the  belief  that  her  first  husband  was  dead  does  not  justify  the 
rejection  of  her  claim  for  one-half  her  first  husband's  pension 
upon  the  ground  that  she  was  not  a  woman  of  good  moral  char- 
acter, even  though  her  belief  was  not  well  founded. 

Division  of  pension — Act  of  Marchc  3,  J 899 — Special  examina- 
tion— Construction.     (Nutt  v.  Nutt,  14  P.  D.,  338.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case  fails  to  establish  the  fact  that  claim- 
ant was,  at  the  date  of  filing  her  application,  a  woman  of  good 
moral  character. 

Good  moral  character  is  established,  prima  facie,  by  proof  of 
good  reputation  by  witnesses  who  know  the  general  reputation 
of  the  claimant,  but  this  prima  facie  proof  is  outweighed  by 
proof  of  acts  of  such  immorality  as  are  wholly  inconsistent 
with  good  moral  character,  and  when  such  acts  took  place  prior 
to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  the  question  as  to 
whether  the  testimony  is  too  remote  is  one  of  discretion. 

The  act  of  March  3,  1899,  is  in  no  sense  a  penal  statute,  yet  in 
ascertaining  the  beneficiaries  under  the  grant  of  one-half  of  a 
pension  which  has  been  allowed,  the  act  is  strictly  construed. 

Neither  the  beneficiaries  under  said  act  of  March  3,  1899,  nor 
the  pensioners  are  entitled,  as  a  legal  right,  to  a  special  examina- 


262  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

tioji,  but  when  a  special  examination  is  ordered  in  a  claim  under 
the  act,  both  j^arties  or  their  attorneys  are  entitled  to  due  notice 
thereof,  unless  the  examination  is  directed  through  the  criminal 
section  of  the  Bureau,  ©r  for  the  purpose  of  securing  evidence 
on  which  to  base  or  prosecute  a  civil  or  criminal  case. 

Division  of  pension — Moral  character.  (Munier  /;.  Munier,  15  P. 
D,  21.) 

A  woman  who  is  show^n  to  be  addicted  to  the  immoderate  use 
of  intoxicating  liquor  and  profane  language,  and  guilty  of 
cruelty  and  abuse  of  pensioner  and  his  two  minor  children,  is 
not  of  good  moral  character  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of 
March  3,  1899. 

Division  of  pensions — Act  of  March  3,  1899 — Moral  character — 
Practice — Credibility — Evidence.  (Humbert  /'.  Humbert,  15  P. 
D.,  123.) 

Pensioner's  contention  that  his  wife  is  not  of  good  moral  char- 
acter is  not  sustained  by  the  evidence. 

The  regulations  require  that  the  officer  who  takes  the  depo- 
sition of  witnesses  must  certify  as  to  his  knowledge  of  the  credi- 
bility of  the  witnesses,  and  must  state  how^  such  knowledge  was 
obtained. 

The  testimony  of  witnesses  whose  credibility  is  thus  certified 
is  entitled  to  greater  weight  than  the  testimony  of  witnesses 
whose  credibility  is  not  certified,  unless  their  credibility  is  other- 
wise ascertained  or  established. 

Division  of  pension — Act  of  March  3,  1899 — Moral  character — 
Remarriage.     (Bartoo  v.  Bartoo,  15  P.  D.,  136.) 

The  mere  fact  that  claimant  married  her  second  and  third 
husband  during  the  lifetime  of  her  first  husband,  under  the 
belief  .that  she  w^as  legally  competent  to  contract  a  second  and 
third  marriage,  does  not  justify  the  rejection  of  her  claim  for 
one-half  her  first  husband's  pension  upon  the  ground  that  she 
was  not  a  woman  of  good  moral  character. 

Claimant  has  failed  to  show  that  she  is  the  lawful  wife  of  pen- 
sioner by  establishing  the  illegality  of  her  subsequent  marriages. 

19.  Naval  Home. 

Division  of  pension — Limitation — Navy  pension — Naval  Home — 
Act  March  3,  1899.     (Williams  v.  Williams,  14  P.  D.,  1.) 

There  is  no  authority  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  for  divid- 
ing the  money  benefits  granted  by  act  of  March  2,  1867  (sec. 
4756,  Revised  Statutes) ,  and  allowing  or  paying  one-half  thereof 
to  the  wife  of  a  sailor,  on  the  ground  that  he  is  an  inmate  of  the 
Naval  Home,  at  Philadelphia. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  263 

20.  Estoppel. 

Division  of  pension — Divorce — Estoppel.     (Frederick  v.  Frederick, 
15  P.  D.,  38.) 

Claimant  having  submitted  her  domestic  controversy  with  her 
husband  to  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction,  she  is  barred  by 
the  judicial  decree  granting  him  a  divorce  on  the  ground  of  her 
desertion. 

Claimant  having  entered  her  appearance  by  her  attorney  in 
the  suit  on  the  part  of  her  husband  for  a  divorce,  she  is  estopped 
to  deny  jurisdiction  of  the  court  rendering  the  decree  in  said  suit 
because  of  lack  of  service  of  notice  upon  her. 

If,  as  contended  by  claimant,  her  husband  procured  his  decree 
by  false  and  fraudulent  testimony,  her  remedy  is  by  application 
to  said  court  to  set  aside  the  decree. 

Where  both  parties  are  living  and  the  courts  are  open  to  them, 
they  should  test  the  validity  or  invalidity  of  a  decree  of  divorce 
where  the  divorce  was  procured,  or  impeach  its  validity  by  proper 
proceedings  in  another  court. 
Division  of  pension — Act  of  March  S^  1899 — Soldiers^  Home — Mar- 
riage— Estoppel.     (Curtis  v.  Curtis,  15  P.  D,,  143.) 

Appellant's  contentions  that  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  under 
which  the  application  was  made  in  this  case,  does  not  apply  to 
him  because  he  is  not  an  inmate  of  a  Soldiers'  Home,  and  that 
the  evidence  fails  to  show  that  claimant  is  the  wife  of  pensioner, 
are  not  sustained  by  the  evidence  in  the  case. 

The  "  agreement  for  companionship  "  alleged  to  have  been  en- 
tered into  between  pensioner  and  claimant  is  not  a  marriage  con- 
tract and  created  no  marital  liability,  but  the  subsequent  course 
of  conduct  of  the  parties,  their  cohabitation  as  husband  and  wife 
in  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  pensioner's  recognition  of  claimant  as 
his  wife  estop  him  to  deny  that  claimant  is  his  lawful  wife  for 
the  purpose  of  escaping  his  legal  liability  as  her  husband  to  con- 
tribute to  her  support,  he  having  subsequently  deserted  her. 

DOMICILE. 

See  Decree  of  Nullity:  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  470). 

See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  8  (12  P.  D.,  412;  14  P.  D.,  479;  15  P. 

D.,  14). 
See  Marriage:  No.  9  (15  P.  D.,  308)  ;  No.  11  (15  P.  D.,  392,  459). 

DOUBLE  PENSION. 

See  Reimbursement  :  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  84). 
See  Restoration  :  No.  2  (13  P.  D.,  378). 

Double  pensions. — Special  act.     (Emma  A.  Porch,  widow,  9  P. 
D.,  420.) 

This  appellant  is  now  in  receipt  of  a  pension  of  $20  per  month, 


264  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

granted  to  her  personally  by  a  special  act  of  Congress  in  recogni- 
tion of  services  rendered  by  her  individnally  to  the  Government 
during  the  war  of  the  rebellion.  She  seeks,  in  addition  thereto, 
a  pension  as  widow  of  the  deceased  soldier  under  the  general  pro- 
visions of  section  4702,  Revised  Statutes.  The  granting  or  pay- 
ment of  such  pension* to  her  is  expressly  and  positively  prohibited 
by  the  provisions  of  section  5  of  the  act  of  July  25,  1882,  so  long 
as  she  is  in  receipt  of  pension  under  said  special  act. 

DRAFTED  MAN. 

See  Service  :  Nos.  7,  8  (9  P.  D.,  158,  292,  300 ;  12  P.  D.,  273 ;  14  P.  D., 
03;  15  P.  D.,  232)  ;  No.  22  (15  P.  D.,  548). 

DRAFTED  MAN  AND  SUBSTITUTE. 

See  Sebvice  :  No.  8  (9  P.  D.,  158,  162,  305 ;  12  P.  D.,  273 ;  14  P.  D.,  63). 


DROPPING. 


DURESS. 


See  Adulterous  Cohabitation:  No.  1   (9  P.  D.,  324);  No.  2   (9  P. 

D.,  62,  116,  327)  ;  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  286)  ;  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  48). 
See  Desertion  :  No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  362). 
See  Notice:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  50). 
See  Origin:  No.  3  (13  P.  D.,  1). 
See  Practice:  No.  12  (11  P.  D.,  13). 
See  Restoration  :  Nos,  2,  3   (14  P.  D.,  106,  128,  194;  13  P.  D.,  392; 

No.  5  (15  P.  D.,  475). 
See  Service:  Nos.  4,  13  (15  P.  D.,  158;  9  P.  D.,  15). 
See  Helpless  Minor:  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  478). 


See  Disloyalty:  Nos.  5,  7  (11  P.  D.,  290;  12  P.  D.,  12). 
See  Marriage:  No.  4  (12  P.  D.,  434). 


ELECTION. 

See  Attorneys:  No.  19  (14  P.  D.,  269). 

See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  2  (10  P.  D.,  78;  11  P.  D.,  171,  247;  15 

P.  D.,  18,  100,  106,  194). 
See  Rate  and  Rating  :  No.  8  (12  P.  D.,  331). 

Election — Practice — Notice.  (Joseph  Muckenstorm,  10  P.  D.,  61.) 
Claimant  being  in  receipt  of  a  pension  under  the  act  of  June 
27,  1890,  his  claim  under  the  general  law  having  been  subse- 
quently admitted,  it  was  finally  rejected  on  the  ground  of  no 
benefit,  and  claimant  w^as  notified  of  such  rejection,  but  not  of 
the  fact  that  it  had  been  admitted  on  its  merits. 

Held:  Section  4715  vests  the  right  of  election  in  the  pensioner 
alone,  and  said  right  is  not  lost,  limited,  or  qualified  by  the  opin- 
ion of  any  other  person  as  to  whether  or  not  a  payment  under  the 
general  law  would  be  beneficial.     The  latter  part  of  the  first  pro- 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  ^     265 

viso  of  section  2,  act  of  June  27,  1890,  expressely  reserves  the 
right  of  one  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  said  act  to  receive  his  pension 
under  the  general  law,  if  his  claim  under  such  law  is  proved.  It 
is  for  the  pensioner,  under  such  circumstances,  to  make  election, 
and  he  should  be  notified  of  the  right  to  do  so,  issue  of  certificate 
under  the  general  law  being  withheld  until  choice  is  made  by 
claimant. 

ELLET'S  RAM  FLEET. 

See  Evidence:  No.  4  (9  P.  D.,  237). 

EMANCIPATION. 

See  Marriage:  No.  15  (10  P.  D.,  36;  11  P.  D.,  443). 

EMANCIPATION  PROCLAMATION. 

See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  104). 

ENLISTMENT. 

See  Desertion:  No.  5  (9  P.  D.,  488;  11  P.  D.,  193;  12  P.  D.,  137). 
See  Service:  Nos.  7,  8,  20  (10  P.  D.,  169;  9  P.  D.,  305;  12  P.  D.,  500; 
13  P.  D.,  41;  14  P.  D.,  249). 

ENGAGED  IN  ATHLETIC  SPORTS. 

See  Line  of  Duty:  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  217). 

EPILEPSY. 

See  Contributory  Negligence:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  101). 
See  Death  Cause  :  No.  6  (14  P.  D.,  .300). 

ERYSIPELAS. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  5  (12  P.  D.,  491). 

ESTOPPEL. 

References. 

See  Adulterous  Cohabitation  :  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  48). 

See  Desertion  :  No.  4(g)  (15  P.  D.,  8). 

See  Divorce:  Nos.  6,  10  (14  P.  D.,  438;  15  P.  D.,  .553). 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  Nos.  13,  20  (15  P.  D.,  38,  143,  246). 

See  Evidence:  No.  8  (10  P.  D.,  80). 

See  Fee:  No.  20  (13  P.  D.,  25). 

See  Practice:  No.  1  (15  P.  D.,  96). 

Index. 

1.  As  to  former  sworn  statements. 

2.  As  to  a  void  marriage. 

.3.  As  to  a  common-law  marriage. 
4.  As  to  remarriage. 


266  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

1.  As  to  Former  Sworn  Statements. 

Estoppel — Marriaye — Evidence.  (William  M.  Covert,  11  P.  D., 
195.) 

Claimant  herein  swore,  in  1864,  that  soldier  was  married  to  one 
Sarah  Hutchinson,  and  that  she  was  present  at  the  ceremony. 
By  reason  of  such  statement  the  Government  granted  pension 
to  said  Sarah  and  paid  it  to  her  during  her  lifetime,  and  there- 
after to  her  children  during  their  pensionable  minority. 

Held:  Claimant  is  estopped  from  now  setting  up  the  fact  that 
she,  and  not  Sarah,  was  the  wife. 

2.  As  to  a  Void  Marriage. 

Marriage — Void  marriage — Estoppel,  (Phebe  Ann  Coburn,  now 
Robbins,  alleged  widow,  11  P.  D.,  403.) 

The  claimant  is  shown  to  have  separated  from  the  soldier 
shortly  after  his  return  from  the  Army,  and  in  1866  (while  the 
soldier  was  still  living)  married  one  A.  J.  Pebbles,  with  whom 
she  lived  until  he  abandoned  her  in  1880.  The  soldier  died  in 
1871.  She  alleged  that  she  had  heard  that  the  soldier  was  dead 
before  she  married  Pebbles,  but  learned  that  he  was  alive  some 
time  afterwards — about  a  year  before  his  death. 

Held:  That  by  her  marriage  to  Pebbles  in  1866  and  subsequent 
conduct  she  is  estopped  from  claiming  pension  as  the  widow  of 
the  soldier. 

3.  As  to  a  Common-Law  Marriage. 

Marriage  —  Estoppel — Conduct — Reputation,  ( Jennette  Thomp- 
son, widow,  14  P.  D.,  469.) 

A  claimant  who  has  for  years  sustained  toward  a  man  a  de 
facto  relation  of  marriage,  claiming  and  professing  to  be  his 
wife,  acting  as  such,  and  has  been  so  acknowledged  by  him  and 
accepted  by  the  public  generally,  is  estopped  from  establishing 
a  pensionable  status  by  denying  there  was  any  marriage  between 
them. 

4.  As  to  Remarriage. 

Adidterous  cohahitation — Act  of  August  7,  1882 — Minors— Estop- 
pel— Restoration,     (Eliza  Matson,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  47.) 

Claimant  having  by  her  conduct  induced  the  Bureau  of  Pen- 
sions to  act  upon  the  assumption  that  she  had  remarried  and  to 
grant  pension  to  her  minor  child,  who  drew  pension  from  Octo- 
ber 8, 1867,  to  June  14, 1880,  she  is  equitably  estopped  from  claim- 
ing pension  in  her  own  right  during  the  period  the  minor  child 
drew  pension,  notwithstanding  she  was  not  legally  married. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  267 

EVIDENCE. 

References. 

See  Ahanuonment  (7  l\  L).,  437;  8  P.  D.,  42). 

See  Accrued  Pension  :  No.  8  (13  P.  D.,  181)  ;  No.  10  (14  P.  D.,  104). 

See  Adulterous  Cohabitation:  No.  1    (9  P.  D.,  324)  ;  No.  4  (10  P. 

D.,  28())  ;  No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  357;  14  P.  D.,  84,  219)  ;  No.  6  (14  P.  D., 

242)  ;  No.  0  (15  P.  D.,  96). 
See  Aid  and  Attendance:  No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  473). 
See  Appeals:  No.  6  (13  P.  D.,  170). 
See  Attorneys  :  No.  6  (9  P.  D.,  471 ;  15  P.  D.,  163)  ;  No.  8  (10  P.  D., 

4(50)  ;  No.  11  (12  P.  D..  221). 
See  Death  Cause:  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  113,  129,  266)  ;  No.  4  (10  P.  D., 

453)  ;  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  388)  ;  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  89)  ;  No.  9  (12  P.  D., 

459)  ;  No.  14  (13  P.  D.,  342). 
See  Decree  of  Nullity  :  No.  5  (14  P.  D.,  290). 
See  Declarations  :  Nos.  2,  6  (9  P.  D.,  223 ;  11  P.  D.,  420). 
See  Dependent  Parents  :  Nos.  4,  5  (12  P.  D.,  129,  361 ;  13  P.  D.,  241 ; 

14  P.  D.,  267;  9  P.  D.,  287). 
See  Dependent  Widow:  No.  4  (15  P.  D.,  203). 

See  Desertion  :  No.  4  (b)  (14  P.  D.,  375)  ;  No.  4  (f)  (15  P.  D.,  437). 
See  Disloyalty  :  Nos.  2,  5,  6,  10   (10  P.  D.,  86;  11  P.  D.,  124,  136, 

.327;  12  P.  D.,  45;  14  P.  D.,  104). 
See  Disability  :  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  47;  10  P.  D.,  276). 
See  Divorce:  Nos.  1,  2,  5  (10  P.  D.,  311,  348;  13  P.  D.,  68;  14  P.  D., 

438,  535). 
See  Division  of  Pension  :  Nos.  1,  4,  8,  12,  13,  15,  16,  17,  18  (11  P.  D., 

377 ;  13  P.  D.,  142,  180 ;  14  P.  D.,  159,  479 ;  15  P.  D.,  14 ;  13  P.  D., 

120,  218,  297,  347 ;  13  P.  D.,  205,  233 ;  14  P.  D.,  385 ;  13  P.  D.,  424 ; 

14  P.  D.,  234 ;  15  P.  D.,  298 ;  13  P.  D.,  301 ;  14  P.  D.,  334 ;  13  P.  D., 

383;  15  P.  D.,  123). 
See  Estoppel:  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  195). 
See  Fee:  No.  15  (11  P.  D.,  215). 

Sese Fraud  and  Mistake:  Nos.  2,  3  (11  P.  D.,  200,  308). 
See  Identity:  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  371). 
See  Increase:  No.  10  (11  P.  D.,  51). 
See  Legitimacy:  Nos.  4,  5,  8  (12  P.  D.,  102;  13  P.  D.,  541;  15  P.  D., 

386). 
See  Line  of  Duty:  Nos.  5,  8,  11,  15  (10  P.  D.,  345;  11  P.  D.,  191,  84, 

516;  14  P.  D.,  518). 
See  Marriage:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  446;  12  P.  D.,  296;  14  P.  D.,  17,  43)  ; 

No.  2  (a)    (13  P.  D.,  234)  ;  No.  2  (b)    (15  P.  D.,  223)  ;  No.  2  (d) 

(11  P.  D.,  144;  15  P.  D.,  103)  ;  No.  2(f)  (14  P.  D.,  355)  ;  No.  2(k) 

(15  P.  D.,  186)  ;  No.  2  (1)    (13  P.  D.,  333;  15  P.  D.,  229)  ;  No.  2 

(o)    (13  P.  D.,  264)  ;  No.  2  (p)    (11  P.  D.,  339)  ;  No.  2  (q)    (14  P. 

D.,  349)  ;  No.  2(r)  (10  P.  D.,  304.  431 ;  13  P.  D.,  49 ;  14  P.  D.,  530)  ; 

No.  2  (s)   (14  P.  D.,  456)  ;  No.  2  (t)    (14  P.  D.,  417,  554;  15  P.  D., 

240)  ;  No.  2  (u)    (15  P.  D.,  2.36)  ;  No.  2  (w)    (15  P.  D.,  86)  ;  No. 
.     2  (y)    (15  P.  D.,  211)  ;  No.  2  (z)    (13  P.  D.,  213)  ;  No.  2  (aa)    (13 

P.  D.,  403)  ;  No.  2  (bb)    (11  P.  D.,  212;  14  P.  D.,  365;  15  P.  D., 

208,  413)  ;  No.  2  (ff)    (11  P.  D.,  427)  ;  No.  2  (gg)    (14  P.  D.,  212)  ; 

No.  2  (ii)    (15  P.  D.,  540)  ;  No.  2  (kk)    (10  P.  D.,  328;  12  P.  D., 

514)  ;  No.  2  (11)    (15  P.  D.,  399)  ;  No.  2  (oo)    (13  P.  D.,  146)  ;  No. 

3  (a)   (10  P.  D.,  294;  11  P.  D.,  320)  ;  No.  3  (b)   (10  P.  D.,  297;  12 


268  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

P.  D.,  312,  417)  ;  No.  8  (c)  (10  P.  D.,  423;  11  P.  D..  139,  158;  12  P. 
D.,  182,  333)  ;  No.  4  (9  P.  D.,  5(X) ;  10  P.  D.,  393,  409 ;  11  P.  D.,  204 ; 
12  P.  D.,  134,  434;  13  P.  D.,  90,  272,  402;  14  P.  D.,  21)  ;  No.  (J  (13 
P.  D.,  m)  ;  No.  11  (12  P.  D.,  517;  15  P.  D.,  392)  ;  No.  12  (9  P.  D., 
243 ;  11  P.  D.,  43,  234 ;  12  P.  D.,  32,  278,  348 ;  14  P.  D.,  442)  ;  No.  13 
(11  P.  D.,  G6,  131;  14  P.  D.,  497)  ;  No.  15  (10  P.  D.,  36;  11  P.  D., 
181 ;  13  P.  D.,  173;  14  P.  D.,  156,  288,  436,  491.  537 ;  15  P.  D.,  30)  ; 
No.  2  (r)  (15  P.  D.,  464)  ;  No.  2  (e)  (15  P.  D..  493)  ;  No.  2  (gg) 
(15  P.  D.,  495)  ;  No.  15  (15  P.  D.,  30,  503). 

See  Minors:  No.  5  (12  P.  D.,  512). 

See  Pathological  Sequence;  Nos.  1,  14,  15,  24  (12  P.  D.,  425;  13  P. 
D.,  307;  13  P.  D.,  112;  13  P.  D.,  222). 

See  Practice  :  Nos  21,  22  (13  P.  D.,  203,  299). 

See  Prior  Soundness:  No.  1  (15  P.  D.,  1). 

See  Rate  and  Rating  :  No.  8,  9  (13  P.  D.,  362 ;  15  P.  D.,  262). 

See  Reimbursement  :  No.  4  (12  P.  D.,  894). 

See  Rerating  :  No.  5  (11  P:  D.,  299). 

See  Res  Judicata:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  179). 

See  Restoration  :  No.  2  (14  P.  D.,  411)  ;  No.  6  (15  P.  D.,  483). 

See  Service:  Nos.  3,  4,  8,  22,  25,  28  (14  P.  D.,  298,  408;  15  P.  D.,  44, 
51,  396 ;  14  P  D.,  357,  63 ;  13  P.  D.,  2,30,  288 ;  14  P.  D.,  388). 

See  Vicious  Habits  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  252). 

Index. 

1.  Burden  of  proof. 

2.  Disability. 

3.  Disloyalty. 

4.  Incurrence. 

5.  Identity. 

6.  New  disability. 

7.  Record,  sufficiency  of. 

8.  Elstoppel. 

9.  Mm*riage,  presumption  as  to. 

10.  Death,  presumption  as  to. 

11.  Notice,  how  proved. 

12.  Of  family  physician  versus  opinion  of  medical  referee. 

13.  Prior  service,  presumption  as  to. 

14.  Prior  soundness,  presumption  as  to. 

15.  Record,  rebuttal  of. 

16.  Vicious  habits,  presumption  as  to. 

17.  Specialist. 

1.  Burden  of  Proof. 

Evidence  —  Special  examinatioii  —  Burden  of  proof.  (John  E. 
Neary,  13  P.  D.,  437.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case  does  not  conform  to  the  requirements 
as  to  the  character  and  quantity  of  proof  necessary  to  establish 
claims  of  this  class. 

As  it  does  not  appear  from  the  evidence  that  the  claim  is  a 
meritorious  one,  or  reasonably  probable  that  testimony  could  be 
obtained  to  legally  establish  its  merits,  such  a  prima  facie  case 
as  contemplated  by  \he  rules  of  the  Bureau,  which  have  been 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  269 

approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the   Interior,  governing  special 
examinations  has  not  been  presented. 

The  enactments  of  Congress  relating  to  special  examinations 
conferred  no  new  rights  upon  applicants  for  pension,  nor  do 
they  in  any  manner  shift  from  them  the  burden  of  legally  estab- 
lishing their  claims. 

2.  Disability. 

Increase — Certificates  of  medical  examinations.     (Robert  W.  Mat- 
thews, 9  P.  D.,  333.) 

Inasmuch  as  the  evidence  on  file,  including  the  last  two  certifi- 
cates of  medical  examination,  is  unsatisfactorv  as  to  the  decree 
of  disability  existing  at  the  date  of  said  examinations,  on  account 
of  pensioned  causes  alone,  a  special  examination  is  deemed  advis- 
able, for  which  purpose  the  papers  in  the  case  are  remanded. 

3.  Disloyalty. 

Evidence — Practice — Disloyalty.     (John  N.  McCollum,  9   P.   D., 
150.) 

This  claim,  having  been  adjudicated  and  rejected  upon  insuf- 
ficient evidence,  is  remanded  for  reopening  and  read  judication 
under  instructions. 

4.  Incurrence. 

Evidence — Incurrence — Ellefs  ram  fleet.     (Noah  Perry,  9  P.  D., 
237.) 

Appellant  claims  pension  for  disability  from  being  scalded 
with  hot  water  and  steam  while  serving  on  the  ram  Lancaster  in 
an  engagement  with  the  Confederate  ram  Arkansas.  There  is 
no  record  of  incurrence  of  said  disabling  cause,  of  service  on  the 
Lancaster.,  nor  of  the  Lancaster  herself ;  but  it  is  an  accepted  his- 
torical fact  that  said  ram  was  disabled  in  July,  1862,  by  the  ram 
Arkansas,  and  that  many  of  her  men  were  scalded ;  and  it  is 
shown  that  appellant  served  on  said  ram  and  was  injured  in  line 
of  duty  as  alleged,  but  the  evidence  of  the  existence  and  continu- 
ance since  his  discharge  of  any  permanent  disabling  effects  of 
said  injury  not  being  satisfactorily  shown  the  case  is  returned 
for  a  special  examination. 

Eoidence^  sufficiency  of — Incurrence.     (George  W.  Warren,  9  P. 
D.,  392.) 

Appellant's  allegation  that  he  incurred  sunstroke,  or  heart 
prostration,  in  August,  1862,  while  on  a  forced  march  with  his 
command  between  Tullahoma  and  Manchester,  Tenn.,  is  fully 
sustained  by  the  affidavits  of  three  reputable  comrades,  who  are 
shown  by  the  record  to  have  been  present  with  their  command 
and  the  claimant  at  the  time  and  place  alleged,  and  who,  in  cor- 


270  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

respondence  with  the  Bureau,  fully  adhere  to  and  sustain  the 
statements  made  in  their  affidavits. 

Held:  That  no  reason  appearing  for  discrediting  their  testi- 
mony, it  is  deemed  sufficient  to  show  incurrence  of  the  disability 
alleged  in  the  service  and  line  of  duty. 
Evidence — Incurrence.     (M.  R.  William  Grebe,  10  P.  D.,  92.) 

Appellant  alleged  that  by  reason  of  his  horse  falling  upon  him 
he  sustained  a  hernia  and  injury  to  ankle  and  privates.  The 
evidence  submitted,  which  has  been  accepted  as  sufficient  to  show 
incurrence  of  hernia,  shows  as  satisfactorily  the  incurrence  of  the 
other  named  results  of  said  fall,  and  will  be  accepted  to  estab- 
lish the  claim  on  account  of  same. 

5.  Identity. 

Evidence — Identity.  (Christopher  Columbus  Yancey,  9  P.  D.,  185.) 
One  witness,  in  the  absence  of  a  record,  Avhose  statement  is  in- 
consistent with  claimant's  allegations,  is  insufficient  to  establish 
the  incurrence  of  an  injury  on  board  of  the  Naumkeag^  as  alleged. 
Furthermore,  the  record  shows  that  the  Christopher  Columbus 
who  served  on  said  vessel  was  at  date  of  enlistment,  December 
12,  1864,  19  years  old,  5  feet  5 J  inches  tall,  and  by  occupation  a 
soldier ;  while  claimant  is  shown  to  be  6  feet  3  inches  tall,  swears 
that  he  never  was  a  soldier,  and  that  in  1896  he  was  40  years  old. 

6.  New  Disability. 

Evidence — New  disability.     (Shadrick  Lee,  9  P.  D.,  214.) 

Whenever,  in  a  claim  for  increase  under  the  general  law,  an 
applicant,  after  long  and  unexplained  silence,  alleges  a  new  dis- 
ability of  wdiich  there  is  neither  record  nor  medical  evidence,  the 
adverse  presumption  arising  from  the  absence  of  such  evidence 
may  be  rebutted,  but  can  be  overcome  only  by  direct  and  positive 
proof  of  incurrence  and  existence,  or  by  satisfactory  evidence  as 
to  facts  and  circumstances  from  which  such  incurrence  and 
existence  may  be  naturally,  fairly,  and  reasonably  inferred. 
(See  case  of  Thomas  H.  Strange,  7  P.  D.,  36.) 

Evidence — New  disability.  (Mathias  M.  Bruner,  10  P.  D.,  46.) 
The  rule  announced  in  the  case  of  Thomas  H.  Strange  (7  P.  D., 
36)  that  "  whenever,  in  a  claim  for  increase  of  pension  under  the 
general  law,  an  applicant,  after  long  and  unexplained  silence, 
alleges  a  new  disability  of  which  there  is  neither  record  nor  med- 
ical evidence,  the  adverse  presumption  arising  from  the  absence 
of  such  evidence  is  open  to  rebuttal  by  the  testimony  of  officers, 
comrades,  and  neighbors;  but  such  presumption  is  not  out- 
weighed by  the  mere  recital,  under  oath,  of  assertions  mad^  long 
since  by  the  soldier  himself  or  by  general  and  vague  statements 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  271 

of  witnesses,  and  can  be  overcome  only  by  direct  and  positive 
proof  of  incurrence  and  existence,  or  by  satisfactory  evidence  as 
to  facts  and  circumstances  from  which  said  incurrence  is  to  be 
naturally,  fairly,  and  reasonably  inferred,''  appears  to  be  well 
founded,  and  its  proper  application  can  work  no  injustice  to 
either  the  claimant  or  the  Government. 

7.  Record,  Sufficiency  of. 

Evidence — Record — Certi-ficate    of   disahility.     (Daniel    M.    Delo, 
10  P.  D.,  319.) 

A  record  made  at  the  time  of  the  soldier's  discharge,  by  the 
surgeon  who  recommended  his  discharge,  showing  that  the  dis- 
ability was  incurred  about  the  time  he  alleges  and  "  whilst  in  the 
performance  of  his  duty,"  is  accepted  as  sufficient  evidence  of 
incurrence  in  line  of  duty,  there  being  nothing  in  the  case,  after  a 
special  examination,  tending  to  discredit  such  record,  and  no 
other  evidence  being  obtainable. 

Evidence — Surgeon\s  certificate — Record — Presumptions.      (C.  R. 
Beardslee,  alias  Charles  B.  Barclay,  12  P.  D.,  264.) 

A  statement  in  a  certificate  of  discharge  that  the  disabling 
cause  on  account  of  which  the  soldier  was  discharged  existed 
prior  to  enlistment  outweighs  and  rebuts  the  presumption  of 
prior  soundness  (Isaac  Williamson,  1  P.  D.,  7). 

Evidence — Record — Certificate  of  disability.     (Thomas  F.  Gard- 
ner, 13  P.  D.,  84.) 

Ajipellant  was  discharged  from  the  service  on  a  surgeon's 
certificate  of  disability  Avhich  recited  that  he  was  "  incapable  of 
performing  the  duties  of  a  soldier  because  of  a  fracture  of  the 
carpal  bones  of  right  hand,  preventing  the  free  use  of  the  same. 
Injury  was  received  July  15,  at  Alexandria,  when  getting  on  a 
railway  train,  the  said  private  being  on  duty  at  the  time." 

Held:  That  the  presumption  is  that  the  surgeon  who  made  the 
certificate  secured  his  information  from  reliable  sources.  His 
duty  was  to  make  a  true  record  of  the  facts  recited  in  it.  The 
presumption  that  he  performed  his  full  duty  in  that  regard  is  so 
strong  that  it  is  not  overcome  by  mere  probabilities. 

Evidence — Record    of    the    War   Department — Opinion    evidence. 
(Catherine  Parcell,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  450.) 

Soldier  was  formally  discharged  by  the  customary  certificate 
of  discharge  after  a  service  of  more  than  five  months,  as  shown 
by  the  records  of  the  War  Department.  In  the  absence  of  any 
evidence  to  the  contrary  it  will  be  presumed  that  he  served  ninety 
days  or  more,  "  actual  service,"  in  the  war  of  the  rebellion.  The 
widow  is  therefore  pensionable. 


272  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

The  conclusion,  determination,  or  opinion  of  an  officer  of  any 
other  Department,  based  upon  evidence  not  before  this  Depart- 
ment, is  not  competent  evidence  to  be  considered  in  the  deter- 
mination of  the  case. 

8.  Estoppel. 

Evidence — Record — Admissions — Estoppels.      (Edmund   R.   Xew- 
hard,  10  P.  D.,  80.) 

The  record,  based  on  claimant's  own  statement  in  writing, 
shows  that  the  disability  alleged,  disease  of  heart,  existed  i^rior 
to  his  enlistment;  claimant  can  not  contradict  this  record,  even 
though  his  statement  be  false.  (Case  of  John  H.  Ruhl,  8  P.  D., 
351.) 

Evidence — Certificate  of  disahility.     (John  Schubert,  deceased,  10 
P.  D.,  196.) 

The  statement  of  the  claimant's  captain  in  a  certificate  of  dis- 
ability, made  in  the  regular  discharge  of  his  official  duty,  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  disability  for  which  pension  is  claimed,  is  not 
overcome  by  his  contrary  statement  made  from  memory  eight  or 
nine  years  afterwards. 

9.  Marriage,  Presumption  as  to. 

E  oidence — Burden  of  proof — Presumptions — Marriage.     ( August  a 
M.  Koschwitz,  widow  (11  P.  D.,  102). 

There  being  nothing  whatever  in  the  evidence  tending  to  show 
this  soldier  was  ever  married  prior  to  his  formal  marriage  to 
claimant  in  1886,  at  which  time  he  was  66  years  of  age,  and  the 
testimony  showing  that  from  the  time  of  his  discharge  from  serv- 
ice in  1864  until  such  marriage  he  was  always  considered  a  single 
man,  her  marriage  to  the  soldier  must  be  presumed  to  have  been 
valid,  and  the  burden  of  proof  of  its  invalidity  is  upon  the 
Government. 

10.  Death,  Presumption  as  to. 

Presumptioh,  of  death — Act  March  IS.,  1896.     (Matilda  L.  Kelly, 
widow,  9  P.  D.,  201.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case  satisfactorily  establishes  the  con- 
tinued and  unexplained  absence  of  the  above-named  soldier  from 
his  home  and  family  since  November,  1877,  since  which  date  no 
intelligence  of  his  existence  has  been  received,  and,  therefore,  his 
death  should  be  considered  ''  as  sufficiently  proved,"  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  March  13,  1896. 

Evidence — Presumption  of  death.     (Susan  Kelly,  widow,  9  P.  D., 
418.) 

Soldier  was  seen  in  Denver,  Colo.,  about  four  years  after  he 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  273 

abandoned  his  home  and  family  in  Ohio  by  an  acquaintance, 
whom  he  told  that  he  had  a  wife  in  Ohio  with  whom  he  had 
some  difficulty,  and  that  he  wanted  to  go  aw^ay  from  her. 

Held:  That  his  absence  from  his  home  and  family  for  more 
than  seven  years  is  not  unexplained  so  that  his  death  may  be 
presumed  under  the  act  of  March  13,  1896. 
Evidence — Presumption  of  death. —  (Helen  L.  Pepper,  widow,  9 
P.  D.,  500.) 

1.  The  death  of  the  husband  can  not  be  presumed  from  the 
fact  that  he  deserted  his  wife,  howsoever  long  said  desertion  may 
continue. 

2.  The  act  of  March  3,  1890,  relates  only  to  presumption  of 
death  of  the  enlisted  man  or  officer  on  account  of  whose  service 
and  death  pension  is  claimed. 

Evidence — PveHumptions — Death.      (Sophia    Pearson,    widow,    10 
V.  D.,  6.) 

The  soldier  deserted  claimant  in  New  York  in  1846  and  went 
to  Missouri,  where  he  married  another  woman,  from  whom  he 
separated  after  a  few  years,  and  shortly  afterwards  left  there 
and  has  not  been  heard  from  since.  He  is  now,  if  living,  about 
82  years  of  age. 

Held:  That  the  facts  do  not  warrant  a  presumption  of  death, 
as  soldier's  absence  is  not  unexplained. 
Evidence — Presnmption  of  death — Marriage.     (Priscilla  Childers, 
alleged  widow,  10  P.  D.,  51.) 

The  statute  of  Kentucky  relative  to  presumption  of  death 
applies  only  where  the  absent  person  shall  have  gone  from  the 
State  and  does  not  return  to  the  State  for  seven  successive  years, 
and  there  being  no  evidence  in  this  case  that  claimant's  first  hus- 
band ever  left  the  State,  his  death  can  not  be  presumed,  and  her 
marriage  to  the  soldier  w^as,  therefore,  null  and  void. 
Evidence — Presumption  of  death — Act  March  13, 1896.  (Mary  E. 
Burke,  alleged  widow,  11  P.  D.,  197.) 

The  soldier  abandoned  his  family  in  1882  in  the  city  of  Phila- 
delphia, Pa.,  without  any  Avarning  or  previous  intimation  of  his 
purpose,  and  remained  in  said  city  for  two  years  thereafter  with- 
out communicating  with  his  wife,  his  mother,  or  other  relatives. 

Held:  That  his  absence  from  his  home  and  family  is  not  unex- 
l)lained,  and  that  there  is  no  reason  for  presuming  his  death. 
Evidence — Presumption   of   death — Accrued   pension.     (Mary   J. 
Schrater,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  501.) 

The  date  of  the  soldier's  death  being  material  in  a  claim  by  an 
alleged  widow  for  his  accrued  pension,  it  must  be  satisfactorily 

13070—06 18 


274  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

established  by  distinct  proof,  and  may  not  be  established  by 
general  presumption  merely,  under  the  rule  as  to  presumption  of 
death  from  seven  years'  unexplained  absence.  (Davie  v.  Briggs, 
97  U.  S.,  628.) 

Evidence — Presumption  of  death — Act  March  13,  1896.  (Mary  L. 
Reese,  alleged  widow,  12  P.  D.,  111.) 

As  appellant's  husband  (the  soldier)  had  not  been  absent 
unheard  of  for  seven  years  next  preceding  the  filing  of  her  claim 
for  pension,  and  no  evidence  tending  to  show  his  death  prior 
thereto  having  been  furnished,  she  can  not  be  held  to  be  said 
soldier's  widow  and  entitled  to  pension  on  account  of  his  service 
and  death. 

10.  Death,  Presumption  as  to. 

Death — Evidence — Presumption.  (Annie  Lynch,  widow,  13  P.  D., 
54.) 

To  warrant  the  presumption  of  death  of  a  soldier  in  a  pension 
claim  it  is  not  necessary  to  show  the  "  unexplained  absence  of 
such  enlisted  man  from  his  home  and  family,"  as  provided  in 
the  act  of  March  13,  1896,  but  proof  that  he  has  not  been  heai-d 
of  for  seven  years  by  those  (if  any)  who,  if  he  had  been  alive, 
would  naturally  have  heard  of  him  is  sufficient  to  warrant  the 
presumption  of  his  death,  unless  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
are  such  as  to  account  for  his  not  being  heard  of  without  assum- 
ing his  death.     (Davie  v.  Briggs,  97  U.  S.,  628.) 

In  this  case,  while  there  were  reasons  why  soldier  did  not  com- 
municate with  his  wife,  yet  he  was  in  correspondence  with  his 
brothers  and  sister  until  1874,  when  it  is  supposed  he  was  killed 
on  a  railroad,  and  promised  to  write  again,  but  never  did,  and 
these  facts  bring  the  case  within  the  common-law  rule  of  pre- 
sumption of  death  as  stated  in  Davie  v.  Briggs. 

Death — Evidence — Presumption — Act  of  June  27 \  1890.  (Johanna 
Showery,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  41.) 

In  New  Jersey  death  of  a  person  will  be  presumed  or  held  to 
be  proven,  under  the  statute  of  that  State  relative  to  presumption 
of  death,  unless  all  reasonable  doubts  of  the  person  being  alive 
within  seven  years  from  the  date  he  or  she  was  last  known  to  be 
living  are  removed. 

Held:  There  is  no  such  presumption  or  proof,  under  the  evi- 
dence herein,  as  to  the  death  of  this  soldier's  first  wife,  and  she 
must  be  held  to  have  been  alive  at  the  time  of  his  marriage  to 
claimant,  which  was  consequently  void,  and  claimant  is  not  his 
widow. 


I 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  25^5 

Evidence — Sufficiency  of — Circumstantial  evidence.  ( Sybilla 
Heinz,  widow,  10  P.  D.,  289.) 

Soldier,  after  repeated  failures  to  obtain  work,  both  mentally 
and  physically  enfeebled  by  a  w^asting  and  incurable  disease, 
with  starvation  staring  him  in  the  face,  his  wife  dangerously 
ill  in  a  public  hospital,  and  with  no  prospect  or  hope  of  relief 
in  the  immediate  future,  declared  his  intention  to  take  his  life 
and  thus  put  an  end  to  his  misery  in  this  world.  Immediately 
thereafter,  on  July  22,  1887,  he  disappeared,  and  although  it 
was  not  absolutely  or  positively  known,  it  was  universally 
accepted  and  believed  as  a  fact  by  all  conversant  with  the  cir- 
cumstances at  the  time,  that  he  had  thrown  himself  into  the 
Mississippi  River  and  was  drowned.  These  facts  were  accepted 
by  the  Bureau  of  Pensions  as  sufficient  to  raise  the  presumption 
of  the  fact  of  soldier's  death  under  the  provisions  of  the  act 
of  March  13,  1896,  but  not  sufficient  to  raise  the  presumption 
of  death  prior  to  the  expiration  of  seven  years  after  his  dis- 
appearance. 

It  is  held  that  the  evidence  in  this  case  is  sufficient  to  show  the 
death  of  soldier  on  July  22,  1887,  and  to  entitle  the  widow  to 
pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  and  March  6,  1896,  from 
the  date  of  filing  her  first  application,  September  22,  1890. 

Evidence — Presumption  of  death — Act  of  March  13^  1896 — Lex 
domicilii.  (Elizabeth  Ouslem,  formerly  Ellsworth,  widow, 
15P.  D.,  347.) 

The  act  of  March  13,  1896,  is  limited  in  its  application  to 
soldiers  and  sailors. 

In  the  absence  of  a  Federal  statute  expressly  relating  thereto, 
presumption  of  death,  to  the  extent  that  it  may  affect  the  question 
as  to  whether  a  marriage,  whereby  a  soldier's  widow  forfeits  her 
pension  under  the  general  law,  is  dissolved,  will  be  indulged 
according  to  the  lex  domicilii. 

Evidence — Presumption  of  death — Line  of  duty — Record  of  War 
Department — Missing  in  action.  (Harriet  Barnett,  mother,  15 
P.  D.,  500.) 

It  is  shown  by  the  records  of  the  War  Department,  and  evi- 
dence of  comrades,  relatives,  and  neighbors,  that  the  soldier 
participated  in  the  battle  of  Guntown,  Miss.,  June  10,  1864,  was 
officially  reported  "  missing  in  action  "  from  that  date,  and  has 
not  since  been  seen  or  heard  from  by  his  family,  former  friends, 
or  the  comrades  who  have  testified  in  this  case. 

Held:  The  evidence  is  sufficient  to  show  soldier's  death,  in 
line  of  duty,  on  June  10, 1864. 


276  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

11.  Notice,  How  Proved. 

Notice — Appeal — Service — Evidence — Act   March  3,   1899,     (So- 
phia M.  Loughry  *".  John  Loughry,  11  P.  D.,  523.) 

1.  In  the  absence  of  proof  of  service  of  an  appeal  and  notice 
thereof,  in  the  absence  of  a  waiver  of  service  by  the  appellee,  such 
appeal  will  be  dismissed. 

2.  Due  proof  of  service  may  be  shown  by  a  written  acceptance 
of  service  by  the  appellee  or  her  attorney,  or  a  registry  return  re- 
ceipt signed  by  the  appellee  or  her  attorney  and  forwarded  by 
the  appellant  or  his  attorney  with  an  affidavit  that  on  a  certain 
day  a  copy  of  the  appeal  or  proposed  appeal  has  been  mailed  in 
a  registered  letter,  postpaid,  to  the  appellee  at  a  certain  named 
post-office,  naming  it,  and  that  the  card  was  returned  in  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  receipt  of  such  letter;  or  an  affidavit  showing 
that  on  a  certain  day  and  place  a  copy  of  the  appeal  was  person- 
ally delivered  to  the  appellee  or  her  attorney  of  record. 

Notice — Appeal — Evidence — Proof  service — Act  of  March  3,  1899. 
(Eliza  J.  Conover  v.  William  Conover,  11  P.  D.,  524.) 

An  affidavit  stating  that  a  copy  of  the  appeal  attached  thereto 
had  been  sent  through  the  mail  to  the  address  of  the  claimant  as 
•  given  by  the  Pension  Bureau  is  not  due  proof  of  service  of  the 
appeal,  as  the  proof  should  show  that  the  same  was  mailed  by 
registered  letter,  and  that  the  return  registry  receipt  attached 
to  such  proof  was  the  receipt  for  the  registered  letter  containing 
a  true,  full,  and  complete  copy  of  said  appeal  and  the  notice  of 
appeal. 

12.  Family  Physician  versus  Medical  Referee. 

•     Evidence — Death    cause — Attending    physician.     (Margaret    La- 
lone,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  301.) 

It  is  contended  in  a  motion  for  the  reconsideration  of  depart- 
mental decision  of  August  11,  1900,  in  the  case  at  bar,  that  the 
rules  laid  down  in  the  case  of  the  widow  of  Charles  F.  Brown 
(3  P.  D.,  92)  and  in  the  case  of  Minnie  Shuttleworth  (3  P.  D., 
50),  respectively,  should  govern  in  this  case. 

Held:  That  in  the  rules  laid  down  in  the  cases  cited — to  the 
effect  that  the  medical  referee's  opinion  must  "  have  some  evi- 
dence to  support  it,  and  some  facts  proven  upon  which  to  l)ase 
it,"  before  it  can  be  accepted  in  preference  to  "  the  diagnosis 
made  and  the  opinion  expressed  "  by  the  attending  physician  of 
a  soldier  in  his  last  illness  as  to  the  actual  cause  of  the  latterV 
death — it  w^as  not  the  intention  of  the  Department  to  place  any 
restrictions  upon  the  official  acts  of  the  medical  officers  of  the 
Bureau  which  should  not  equally  apply  to  the  medical  evidence 


t 


I 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  277 

filed  ill  such  cases,  and  that  inasmuch  as  no  other  good  or  suffi- 
cient reason  is  shown  why  former  departmental  action  in  the 
premises  should  be  receded  from  the  pendmg  motion  in  the  case 
is  overruled. 

13.  Prior  Service,  Presumption  as  to. 

E  ride  rice — Weight  of  evidence — Presumption  of  prior  service. 
(Johanna  Dorgan,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  437.) 

The  rejection  of  the  claim  on  the  ground  of  claimant's  inability 
to  prove  that  the  soldier  was  not  in  the  military  or  naval  service 
of  the  United  States  prior  or  subsequent  to  the  term  of  service  on 
which  said  claim  is  based,  when — 

The  weight  of  the  evidence  and  reasonable  inference  from 
known  facts  are  against  the  probability  that  the  soldier  was  in 
the  service  at  any  other  time  than  as  stated  was  error,  as  the 
claimant  should  be  given  the  benefit  of  any  remaining  doubt  on 
that  point. 

14.  Prior  Soundness,  Presumption  as  to. 

Evidence — Prior  soundness — Reimhursenmnt.  (Charles  Hebel,  10 
P.  D.,448.) 

The  record  of  treatment  of  this  pensioner  for  diarrhea  on  one 
occasion  during  his  first  term  of  service  as  a  private  in  Company 
G,  Sixth  Ohio  Volunteer  Infantry,  in  the  absence  of  any  evidence 
whatever  of  the  existence  or  continuance  of  said  disease  during 
the  remainder  of  his  service  in  said  organization,  at  the  date  of 
his  discharge  therefrom,  during  the  period  of  two  years  that 
intervened  betv^^een  said  service  and  his  second  enlistment  and 
muster  in  as  an  officer  of  Company  K,  One  hundred  and  eighty- 
sixth  Ohio  Volunteer  Infantry,  or  at  the  date  of  his  second  enlist- 
ment, is  not  alone  sufficient  to  overcome  presumption  of  sound- 
ness at  the  date  of  said  second  enlistment,  or  to  warrant  or  justify 
the  action  reducing  the  pension  for  chronic  diarrhea  that  had 
been  allowed  him  from  date  of  discharge  from  his  second  term  of 
service  as  of  the  rank  of  captain,  to  the  rank  and  rate  of  a  private, 
and  said  action  was  erroneous. 

It  necessarily  follows  that  the  action  withholding  payment  of 
the  pension  at  present  allowed  to  reimburse  the  Government  for 
excess  of  payments  made  to  the  pensioner  as  of  the  rank  of  cap- 
tain was  likewise  error. 

Evidence — Presumption — Sufficiency.  Andrew  Campbell,  12  P. 
D.,  155.) 

The  fact  that  claimant  had  an  attack  of  rheumatism  while  a 
soldier  in  the  Mexican  war  does  not  furnish  any  just  ground  for 


278  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

concluding  that  he  had  said  disease  at  the  date  of  his  enlistment 
in  1862,  it  having  first  appeared  during  his  last  service  in  1864. 

Prior  soundness — Evidence — Tubercle  of  lung.  (Harrison'Mobley, 
15  P.  D.,  345.) 

The  claim  is  based  upon  tubercular  disease  of  lungs,  alleged  as 
of  service  origin.  The  fact  that  this  disease  was  so  far  advanced 
as  to  warrant  a  positive  diagnosis  within  about  three  weeks  after 
enlistment,  the  claimant  not  having  had  any  acute  illness  imme- 
diately preceding  such  diagnosis,  may  be  accepted  as  sufficient 
proof  that  it  existed  before  he  entered  the  service. 

15.  Record,  Rebuttal  of. 

Evidence — Record — Statements  hy  claimant.  (Ransom  J.  Chase, 
11  P.  D.,  483.) 

The  evidence  to  overcome  a  positive  adverse  record,  made  from 
statements  of  a  claimant,  should  be  clear  and  convincing, 

16.  Vicious  Habits,  Presumption  as  to. 

Evidence — Vicious  habits — Presumption.  (Benjamin  F.  Peter- 
man,  11  P.  D.,  344.) 

Vicious  habits  can  not  be  presumed,  in  case  of  an  injury,  unless 
there  is  something  concerning  the  nature  or  character  of  the 
injury  which  warrants  such  a  presumption,  or  unless  the  evidence 
shows  certain  facts  which  are  sufficient  to  raise  such  a  presump- 
tion. 

Where  neither  the  nature  of  the  injury  nor  the  evidence  ad- 
duced raises  such  a  presumption,  the  testimony  of  two  credible 
witnesses,  to  the  effect  that  claimant  is  now  a  man  of  good  habits, 
and  that  they  do  not  believe,  and  have  no  reason  to  believe,  that 
the  said  injury  was  due  to  vicious  -habits,  will  be  considered  as 
sufficient  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  statute,  provided  always 
that  the  claimant  is  a  man  of  good  repute  for  veracity,  and  that 
he  shows  that  no  better  evidence  is  obtainable  by  him. 

17.  Specialist. 

Evidence — Specialist.     (William  Harris,  9  P.  D.,  73.) 

The  evidence  of  a  specialist;,  he  being  an  agent  of  the  Govern- 
ment and  being  required  by  law  (sec.  4744,  R.  S.)  to  make 
his  examination  thorough  and  searching,  will,  when  such  evi- 
dence is  made  the  basis  of  a  holding  by  the  medical  referee,  be 
ordinarily  accepted  as  against  the  evidence  of  claimant's  physi- 
cians. 

EXAMINING  SURGEONS. 

See  Medical  Examinations:  No  1  (9  P.  D.,  261.) 
See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  20  (11  P.  D.,  317). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  279 

EXAMINATION  OF  RECORD. 

See  Attorneys  :  No.  6  (9  P.  D.,  471 ;  15  P.  D.,  163). 

EXECUTION. 

See  Declarations  :  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  292;  11  P.  D.,  210). 

EXECUTION  OF  PAPERS. 

See  Attorneys:  No.  10  (13  P.  D.,  27). 

See  Declarations:  ^o.  4  (10  P.  D.,  268,  292). 

EXPERTS. 

See  Jurisdiction  :  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  348). 

FAITHFUL  SERVICE. 

See  Desertion  :  No.  4  (f)   (14  P.  D.,  352,  502 ;  15  P.  D.,  4.37). 

FAILURE  TO  PROSECUTE. 

See  Attorneys:  No.  9   (9  P.  D.,  213,  .375;  11  P.  D.,  25;  13  P.  D., 

444)  ;  No.  10  (14  P.  D.,  273). 
See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  11  (13  P.  D.,  411). 

FEE  AND  MERIT  CLAIM. 

See  Practice:  No.  14  (11  P.  D.,  325). 

FEE. 

References. 

See  Attorneys  :  Nos.  3,  5,  7,  9,  10,  11,  12,  14,  18,  20  (9  P.  D.,  19,  362, 
13,  375,  137 ;  10  P.  D.,  403 ;  11  P.  D.,  49,  490,  492,  392 ;  12  P.  D., 
221 ;  14  P.  D.,  273,  328 ;  15  P.  D.,  184,  359): 
See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  2  (11  P.  D.,  247). 
See  Limitation:  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  421). 

Index. 

1.  In  claims  for  restoration  and  increase. 

2.  In  cases  of  motions  for  reconsideration. 

3.  In  case  of  rule  to  show  cause. 

4.  No  fund,  no  fee. 

5.  One  claim,  oue  fee. 

6.  Material  service  must  be  rendered. 

7.  Refundment  of. 

8.  Fee  agreements  in  claims  for  restoration. 

9.  Attorneyship. 

10.  Consolidation  of  claims. 

11.  Forefeiture. 

12.  Practice. 

13.  Forfeiture  and  appeals. 

14.  In  dependent  parents'  claims. 

15.  Material  service,  presumption  as  to. 

16.  Minor's  claim,  vrhole  fee  to  be  paid. 


280  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

17.  Prima  facie  case,  rerating. 

18.  Act  March  3,  1901. 

19.  Act  January  5,  1893. 

20.  Disbarred  attorney. 

21.  Limitation — Order  354. 

22.  Difficulty  and  trouble. 

23.  Disloyalty— Joint  resolution  July  1,  1902. 

24.  Renewal  of  pension. 

25.  Rank. 

26.  For  removing  charge  of  desertion. 

1.  In  Claims  for  Restoration  and  Increase. 

Fee — Restoration  and  increase.     (H.   8.   Berlin,  attorney;  Jacob 
Young,  claimant,  9  P.  D.,  147.) 

AVhere  a  pensioner's  name  has  been  dropped  from  the  roll  solely 
because  he  has  been  allowed  and  has  accepted  pension  under 
some  other  law,  and  upon  application  for  restoration  and  increase 
of  pension  under  the  law  under  which  he  was  pensioned  when  his 
name  was  dropped,  his  name  is  restored  to  the  roll  under  said  law 
at  an  increased  rate,  the  sole  object  in  filing  such  claims  being  to 
secure  a  higher  rate  of  pension  and  not  involving  question  of 
title,  the  attorney  prosecuting  the  same  is  entitled  to  a  fee  of  $2 
only,  the  claim  being  in  no  sense  a  claim  for  restoration  but  for 
increase. 
Fee  agreements — Increase — Acts  of  June  27^  1890,  and  March  3, 
1891.  (John  H.  Afflerbach,  claimant;  Lewis  Heininger,  attor- 
,  ney,  11  P.  D.,  508.) 

The  fee  in  a  claim  for  increase  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
regardless  of  the  cause  upon  which  said  claim  is  based,  is  governed 
by  the  fourth  proviso  of  the  pension  appropriation  act  of  March 
3,  1891,  and  can  not  exceed  $2. 

2.  In  Cases  of  Motions  for  Reconsideration. 

Fee — Practice — Motions  for  reconsideration.     (James  F.  Rusling, 
attorney;   Henry  C.  Williams,  claimant,  9  P.  D.,  39.) 

Under  rule  9,  Rules  of  Practice  before  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  a  second  motion  for  reconsideration  of  a  decision  adverse 
to  a  fee  or  for  recognition  will  not  be  considered,  and  the  deci- 
sions in  this  case  having  been  adhered  to  on  a  former  motion  to 
reconsider,  this  motion  is  dismissed. 

3.  In  Case  of  Rule  to  Show  Cause. 

Fee — Rule  to  show  cause — Act  June  27,  1890.     (Commissioner  of 
Pensions,  9  P.  D.,  136.) 

A  fee,  not  greater  than  $10,  may  be  allowed  to  an  attorney  for 
services  rendered  in  preparing  and  filing  evidence  under  a  rule  to 
show  cause  why  pensioner's  name  should  not  be  dropped  from  the 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  281 

roll,  ill  cases  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  but  the  attorney  may 
not  collect  the  same  directly  from  the  claimant  or  pensioner. 

4.  No  Fund,  No  Fee. 

Fee — No  fund,  no  fee.     (Dorcus  Duggins,  claimant;  John  H.  Duf- 
fie,  attorney,  9  P.  D.,  402.) 

As  the  only  fee  provided  by  law  is  to  be  deducted  from  the  pen- 
sion, it  follows  that  when  the  payment  of  accrued  pension  is  ex- 
pressly limited  to  the  defrayal  of  the  expenses  of  a  pensioner's 
last  illness  and  burial  there  is  no  fund  from  which  the  payment 
of  a  fee  can  be  made.  (Case  of  Lawrence  H.  Davis,  dec,  8  P.  D., 
406.) 

Fee — No  fund.     (Annie  C.  Cashner,  widow;   W.  H.  Rosser,  attor- 
ney, 11  P.  D.,  149.) 

AVhere  there  is  no  fund  from  which  a  fee  can  be  paid,  action 
refusing  to  certify  a  fee  is  proper. 

5.  One  Claim,  One  Fee. 

Fee — One    claim ^    one    fee — Increase.     (Elizabeth    M.    Williams, 
widow,  9  P.  D.,  117.) 

\\Tiere  a  declaration  filed  in  a  widow's  original  claim  for  pen- 
sion sets  forth  that  the  claimant  is  entitled  to  increase  on  account 
of  helpless  condition  of  a  minor  child  of  the  soldier,  the  attorney 
who  is  authorized  to  prosecute  said  claims  by  a  power  of  attorney 
contained  in  said  declaration  is  not  entitled  to  an  additional 
fee  for  securing  such  increase  upon  the  child  attaining  its  six- 
teenth year. 

6.  Material  Service  Must  Be  Rendered. 

Fee — Material — Service.     (J.  B.  Cralle  &  Co.,  attorneys;  John  L. 
Stafford,  claimant,  9  P.  D.,  111.) 

Where  a  claim  for  original  pension  stands  rejected  and  a  dupli- 
cate declaration  is  filed  resulting  in  the  reopening  of  the  claim 
the  filing  thereof  is  deemed  material  service. 

Fee — Attorneyship — Material  service.     (Joseph  Dronant,  deceased, 
claimant;  W.  W.  Dudley,  attorney,  10  P.  D.,  144.) 

Material  evidence  filed  by  an  attorney  entitled  to  recognition, 
at  any  time  before  the  admission  of  the  claim,  though  it  does  not 
reach  the  case  until  after  the  same  is  allowed,  is  such  service  as 
may  warant  the  payment  of  a  fee. 

7.  Refundment  of. 

Fee — Attorneys.     (John  A.  Burgess,  claimant;  Milo  B.  Stevens  & 
Co.,  attorneys,  9  P.  D.,  170.) 

As  but  one  fee  can  be  certified  on  each  issue  to  allow  pension 


282  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

in  a  claim,  where  an  attorney  refuses  to  refund  a  fee  which  was 
erroneously  paid  him,  action  refusing  another  fee  to  the  attorney 
entitled  to  the  one  so  paid  is  proper. 
Fee — Attorneyship — Refundment.     (George  Aab,  deceased,  claim- 
ant; H.  D.  Phillips,  attorney,  9  P.  D.,  377.) 

1.  As  there  is  no  proper  evidence  on  file  of  appellant's  author- 
ity to  secure  the  payment  of  accrued  pension  in  the  soldier's 
claim,  he  is  not  entitled  to  a  fee. 

2.  The  Bureau  of  Pensions  has  authority  to  demand  the  re- 
fundment of  a  fee  or  of  any  compensation  purported  to  have 
been  paid  by  a  claimant  to  an  attorney  for  services  or  expenses 
in  a  pension  claim  where  the  record  show^s  a  fee  has  been  allowed 
by  the  Bureau  and  paid  him  when  not  entitled  thereto,  or  where 
the  receipt  of  compensation  directly  or  indirectly  from  the  claim- 
ant for  such  services  or  expenses  is  admitted  by  the  attorney. 

Fee — Refwmlment — Fraud — Reimbursement.     (Milton  W.  Bailey, 
claimant;  Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  10  P.  D.,  150.) 

Where  a  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  is  withheld 
for  the  purpose  of  reimbursing  the  United  States  for  money 
paid  to  a  claimant  in  a  fraudulent  claim  under  the  general  law, 
payment  of  fee  need  not  be  made  until  the  United  States  has 
been  reimbursed  in  full;  but  if  payment  of  fee  is  made  prior 
thereto  the  attorney  can  not  be  compelled  to  refund,  if  otherwise 
entitled. 

Fee — Refundment — Jurisdiction — Fund.       (Harvey     Harrington, 
claimant;  Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys;   12  P.  D.,  109.) 

As  but  one  fee  can  be  certified  on  each  issue  to  allow  pension 
in  a  claim  where  such  fee  was  erroneously  certified  and  paid 
to  an  attorney  and  he  refuses  to  refund  the  same,  the  Commis- 
sioner can  not  certify  another  fee  to  the  attorney  entitled  to  the 
one  so  paid,  as  there  is  no  fund  from  which  such  fee  may  be  paid. 

Fee — Refundment — Fraud.     (Thomas  Webster,  claimant;  Joseph 
H.  Hunter,  attorney;  12  P.  D.,  441.) 

.  Where  a  pension  has  been  fraudulently  obtained,  the  attorney 
who  prosecuted  the  claim,  without  knowledge  of  the  fraud,  can 
not  be  required  to  refund  the  fee  paid  him  for  his  services  in 
securing  the  pension  allowed.  The  case  of  P^lizabeth  Striggon 
(8  P.  D.,  12)  is  overruled. 

8.  Fee  A^eements  in  Claims  for  Restoration. 

Fee  agreements — Restoration.     (John  R.  Gourd,  claimant;    John 
L.  Springston,  attorney;  9  P.  D.,  355.) 

Where  the  Bureau,  upon  evidence  procured  by  special  examina- 
tion, has  approved  action  for  dropping  a  pensioner's  name  from 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  283 

the  roll  upon  the  ground  that  his  disability  was  not  incurred  in 
line  of  duty,  and  notice  has  been  given  him  to  show  cause  why  his 
name  should  not  be  dropped,  he  may  i^roperly  file  a  claim  for 
restoration  of  pension,  whether  or  not  his  name  has  been  actually 
dropped  from  the  pension  roll.  Such  a  claim  is  one  in  which  the 
law  directs  that  valid  fee  agreements  be  recognized  if  filed. 
Fee — Fee  agreements — Case  of  difficvlty  and  trouble.  (Norman 
Davis,  claimant;  C.  E.  Foote,  attorney;  10  P.  D.,  147.) 

Proceedings  w  ere  instituted  by  the  Government,  which  resulted 
in  action  by  the  Bureau  in  withholding  pension  to  reimburse 
the  Government.  Upon  appeal,  action  was  reversed  and  cer- 
tificate issued  to  allow  payment  of  pension  withheld;  on  said 
issue  no  fee  was  paid.     Fee  agreements  for  $25  were  filed. 

Held:  As  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  has  not  ordered  that 
fee  agreements  be  recognized  in  proceedings  like  those  described, 
the  fee  agreements  filed  applicable  to  such  proceedings  in  this 
particular  claim  should  not  be  recognized.  Also,  that  in  the 
absence  of  authority  to  recognize  fee  agreements  in  such  proceed- 
ings in  claims,  such  fee  shall  be  certified  as  the  Commissioner  may 
see  fit  to  allow,  not  exceeding  $25  in  claims  under  the  general 
law.  Case  of  George  D.  Hilton  (8  P.  D.,  182),  in  so  far  as  it 
conflicts  herewith,  is  overruled. 
Fee — Fee  agreements — Two  claims  and  two  fees.  (Demmon  S. 
Decker,  claimant;  Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys;  10  P.  D., 
198.) 

Attorneys  are  not  bound  by  fee  agreements  limited  in  their 
application  to  a  claim  for  increase  on  account  of  a  new  disability 
to  prosecute  a  claim  for  straight  increase. 

As  the  fee  agreements  filed  were  expressly  limited  in  their 
application  to  the  claim  for  additional  pension,  the  appellants 
are  entitled  to  the  fee  stipulated  in  said  agreements  for  securing 
the  allowance  of  ajiditional  pension,  and  also  to  the  fee  provided 
by  law  for  securing  the  allowance  of  straight  increase. 

9.  Attorneyship. 

Fee — Attorneyship — Limitation.     (James  Rose,  claimant;  Milo  B. 
Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  10  P.  D.,  357.) 

Where  a  pension  claim  has  been  rejected  by  the  Bureau  of  Pen- 
sions and  its  action  has  been  affirmed  by  the  Department,  the 
claim  is  at  an  end,  and  the  authority  of  the  attorney  is  termi- 
nated. However,  it  is  not  necessary  for  said  attorney  to  obtain 
a  new  power  of  attorney  in  his  favor  for  the  institution  of  new 
proceedings,  provided  the  claimant  cooperates  with  him  therein, 
and  has  not  in  the  meantime  authorized  another  attorney  to 
institute  such  proceedings. 


284  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

10.  Consolidation  of  Claims. 

Fee — Consolidation  of  claims.     (Dah  ya  ne  Ah  Kee  la  nee  gar, 
claimant;  John  L.  Springston,  attorney,  10  P.  D.,  146.) 

The  several  applications  for  pension  (to  Avhich  a  widow  may 
be  entitled  in  her  own  right)  in  behalf  of  the  widow  and  minor 
children  of  a  soldier  on  account  of  his  services  and  death  consti- 
tute but  a  single  claim  for  pension,  and  when  the  .several  applica- 
tions are  made  through  the  same  attorney  but  one  fee  can  be  paid 
to  him. 

11.  Forfeiture. 

Fee — Forfeiture — Increase — Act  March  3^  1891.     (Samuel  Wilson, 
claimant;  J.  B.  Cralle  &  Co.,  attorneys,  10  P.  D.,  412.) 

An  attorney,  when  entitled  to  a  certain  sum  as  a  fee,  and  his 
title  thereto  is  conceded  by  the  Bureau  at  the  time  when  a  less 
sum  in  lieu  thereof  is  certified  to  him,  does  not  forfeit  his  right 
to  the  remainder  of  the  fee  through  his  failure  to  enter  a  protest 
to  said  action  of  the  Bureau  in  not  certifying  to  him  the  proper 
amount. 

Fee — Forfeiture — Attorneys  —  Notice.     (James    Marshall,    claim- 
ant; Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  12  P.  D.,  239.) 

1.  The  fact  that  an  attorney  makes,  contention  for  a  fee  for  his 
services  in  a  claim  for  pension  estops  him  from  denying  that  he 
has  received  notice  of  the  allowance  of  the  claim,  and  that  his 
title  to  the  fee  has  been  denied  by  the  Bureau;  and  where  sub- 
sequently to  making  such  contention  he  acquiesces  in  the  adverse 
action  of  the  Bureau  for  one  year — that  is,  fails  to  enter  an  ap- 
peal to  this  Department — he  thereby  forfeits  whatever  title  he 
may  have  had  to  the  fee. 

2.  When  an  attorney  who  contends  for  a  fee  on  the  original 
issue  in  a  claim  under  the  general  law  subsequently  to  said  issue 
files  in  behalf  of  the  applicant  a  declaration  for  "  additional  pen- 
sion "  in  which  is  recited  the  fact  that  the  applicant  is  in  receipt 
of  pension  under  the  general  law,  it  is  presumed  that  said  attor- 
ney has  received  notice  of  the  allowance  of  the  original  claim; 
and  where  under  the  foregoing  conditions  he  acquiesces  for  one 
year  from  the  date  of  filing  said  declaration  in  the  adverse  action 
of  the  Bureau  in  refusing  to  certify  to  him  a  fee  on  the  original 
issue — that  is,  fails  to  enter  an  appeal  to  this  Department  within 
a  year — he  thereby  forfeits  whatever  title  he  may  have  had  to 
the  fee. 

12.  Practice. 

Fee — Practice.     (Miles  Gilder,  claimant;    Fay  F.  Root,  attorney, 
lOP.  D.,  167.)  ^     I 

Appellant's  claim  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  was  allowed 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  285 

at  the  rate  of  $8  per  month  from  date  of  filing  his  claim,  Jnly 
14,  1890;  at  the  same  time  his  claim  under  the  general  law  was 
allowed  at  $4  per  month  from  eJanuary  13,  1890,  but  the  Bureau 
of  Pensions  refused  to  issue  a  certificate  thereon,  as  it  would 
not  afford  claimant  any  benefit,  as  the  full  amount  of  pension 
would  be  required  to  pay  the  attorney's  fee  ($25)  in  the  case. 
The  attorney  in  the  case  waived  the  fee  agreements  and  agreed 
to  receive  a  fee  of  $10,  and  claimant  requested  the  issue  of  a 
certificate. 

Held:  That  under  these  conditions  the  certificate  must  be 
issued  in  the  claim  under  the  general  law. 

13.  Forfeiture  and  Appeals. 

Fee — Forfeiture — Appeals.  (Milton  M.  Kappleye,  claimant;  J.  W. 
Morris,  attorney,  10  P.  D.,  464.) 

AVlien  an  attorney  acquiesces  in  an  action  of  the  Bureau 
denying  him  a  fee  on  an  issue  to  allow  pension  in  a  claim,  for  a 
period  of  one  year  from  the  date  he  was  notified  thereof — that  is, 
fails  to  enter  an  appeal  from  said  action  within  the  year — he 
thereby  forfeits  whatever  title  he  may  have  to  the  fee  certified 
on  said  issue. 

14.  In  Dependent  Parents'  Claims. 

Fee — Fee  agreemenU — Dependent  parents'  claims — Section  Ji.707^ 
Rerised  Statutes,  and  act  of  June  27^  1890.  (Mary  Horan, 
mother,  claimant;  James  F.  Rusling,  attorney,  11  P.  D.,  514.) 

Under  the  fourth  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  fee  of 
but  $10  can  be  paid  an  attorney  for  services  in  a  claim  filed  imder 
any  of  the  provisions  of  said  act ;  and  the  question  as  to  whether 
a  dependent  parent's  claim  was  properly  granted  under  the  pro- 
visions of  section  1  of  said  act  can  not  be  decided  upon  appeal  as 
to  a  question  of  fee,  but  the  remedy  must  be  sought  in  an  appli- 
cation to  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  for  a  read  judication  of  a 
claim  and  a  reissue  under  the  general  law"  as  it  existed  prior  to 
the  passage  of  the  first  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

15.  Material  Service,  Presumption  as  to. 

Fee  —  Refundment  —  Evidence  —  Presumption.  (Edward  W. 
Stephens,  claimant;   G.  W.  Mitchell,  attorney,  11  P.  D.,  215.) 

After  the  lapse  of  several  years  from  the  date  of  an  action  of 
the  Bureau  adjudging  that  an  attorney  is  entitled  to  a  fee,  it  will 
be  presumed  when  it  appears  that  said  attorney  jDerformed  the 
material  service  necessary  to  earn  a  fee,  that  he  observed  the 
rules  of  practice  as  regards  mere  formal  service. 


286  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

16.  Minor's  Claim,  Whole  Fee  to  be  Paid. 

Fee — Attorneys — Minors'  claims — Pro  rata  fee.  (Minors  of 
David  G.  Miller,  claimants;  W.  W.  Dudley,  attorney,  11  P.  D., 
496.) 

In  minor's  claim  for  pension,  when,  upon  issue  of  certificate 
to  allow  pension,  payment  of  the  share  of  one  claimant  is  with- 
held under  the  instructions  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
dated  January  14,  1901,  the  entire  fee  of  the  attorney  prose-- 
cuting  the  case  shall  be  paid  pro  rata  from  the  shares  of  the 
other  claimants' to  whom  pension  is  paid  upon  and  at  the  time 
of  said  issue. 

17.  Prima  Facie  Case,  Eerating. 

Fee — Attorneyship — Forfeiture — Prima  facie  case.  (Annie  E. 
Meyers,  widow,  claimant;  Milo-B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys;  11 
P.  D.,392.) 

Where  an  attorney  has  prima  facie  established  a  claim  for 
pension  and  no  call  for  additional  evidence  has  been  made,  he 
has  earned  the  fee,  though  subsequently  to  his  death  another 
attorney  filed  evidence  for  which  the  Bureau  could  have  issued 
a  call. 

Fee — Fee  agreements — Berating.  (Samuel  Bennison,  claimant; 
Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  11  P.  D.,  202.) 

In  the  absence  of  valid  fee  agreements  an  attorney  is  entitled 
to  a  fee  of  $10  for  his  services  for  the  successful  prosecution  of  a 
claim  for  rerating. 

Fee — Rerating  rate — Commencement  act  January  J,  1893.  ( Reuben 
Merryman,  claimant ;  Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  13  P.  D.. 
75.) 

For  services  in  a  claim  for  rerating  under  any  act  an  attorney 
who  has  been  paid  a  fee  for  prosecuting  a  soldier's  original  claim 
thereunder  is  not  entitled  to  an  additional  fee  when  the  claim 
for  rerating  is  based  upon  a  right  existing  at  the  time  said 
attorney  made  his  contract  to  prosecute  the  original  claim,  it 
being  his  duty  under  said  contract  to  secure  for  the  soldier  the 
correct  rate  of  pension  from  the  proper  time. 

Fee — Rerating^Fund — Act  of  January  J,  1893.  (John  V.  Moore, 
claimant;  Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  15  P.  D.,  278.) 

Claims  for  rerating  are  so  completely  separate  and  distinct 
that  part  payment  of  fee  for  the  prosecution  of  one  claim  by  an 
attorney  can  not  be  made  from  the  fund  of  pension  secured  by 
the  prosecution  of  another  claim  for  rerating  in  behalf  of  the 
same  claimant. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  287 

18.  Act  of  March  3,  1901. 

Fee — Attorneys — Applications — Act  of  March  3,  1901.  (Frances 
A.  Patterson,  as  widow  of  George  N.  Osier,  claimant;  Milo  B. 
Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  12  P.  D.,  5.) 

The  act  of  March  3,  1901,  in  specific  language  prohibits  any 
person  from  receiving  compensation  for  services  in  making 
application  under  its  provisions ;  and  the  words  "  making  appli- 
cation "  signify  not  only  the  filing  of  a  declaration  for  pension, 
but  also  the  filing  of  evidence  showing  title  to  pension. 

As  the  question  as  to  whether  an  attorney  or  agent  may  in  such 
a  case  collect  a  fee  from  the  claimant  is  not  properly  before  the 
Department,  the  appeal,  in  so  far  as  the  same  relates  to  this  point, 
is  dismissed. 
Fee  —  Act  March  S,  1901  —  Attorneys.  (Frances  A.  Patterson, 
widow,  claimant;  Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  12  P.  D.,  29. 

An  attorney  can  not  receive  any  compensation  for  the  prosecu- 
tion of  a  claim  for  pension  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of 
March  3,  1901,  either  directly  or  indirectly  from  the  claimant,  or 
from  any  other  person.  ^ 

19.  Act  of  January  5,  1893. 

Fee  —  Fee  agreements  —  Act  of  January  5,  1893.  (William  H. 
Jones,  claimant;  Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  12  P.  D.,  525.) 

1.  The  fourth  proviso  to  the  pension  appropriation  act  of 
March  3,  1891,  has  no  application  to  the  amount  of  fee  to  be 
allowed  in  claims  under  the  act  of  January  5,  1893,  as  they  are 
not  claims  for  increase  on  account  of  increase  of  the  disability  on 
account  of  which  pension  has  been  allowed. 

2.  The  decision  in  the  case  of  Daniel  Hauenstein  (7  P.  D., 
256)  is  overruled. 

20.  Disbarred  Attorney. 

Fee — Disbarred  attorney — Estoppel.  (Edward  S.  Murray,  claim- 
ant; H.  D.  Phillips,  attorney,  13  P.  D.,  25.) 

When  a  claimant,  pending  the  disbarment  of  his  attorney  of 
record,  employs  another  attorney  who  prosecutes  the  claim  to 
final  adjudication,  no  fee  will  be  certified  to  the  disbarred  at- 
torney upon  his  restoration  to  practice,  but  his  disbarment  will 
operate  as  an  estoppel  to  bar  any  claim  for  fee. 

21.  Limitation — Order  354. 

Fee — Order  35 J^. — Limitation — Notice.  Mary  A.  Goodman^  claim- 
ant; Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  13  P.  D.,  37.) 

When  in  a  claim  certificate  issues  to  allow  pension  prior  to 


288  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

January  15,  1898,  the  date  of  the  promulgation  of  order  854  of 
the  Commissioner  of  Pensions,  and  more  than  three  years  have 
elapsed  from  said  date  before  an  attorney  for  the  first  time  since 
the  allowance  of  the  claim  directs  the  attention  of  the  Bureau  by 
calls  for  status  or  other  method  to  the  consideration  of  his  title 
to  fee  on  said  issue,  the  Bureau,  under  said  order,  may  properly 
refuse  to  consider  his  title  thereto. 
Fee  —  Order  No.  851^.  —  Limitation  —  Notice.  (Hezekiah  Miller, 
claimant;  Milo  B.  Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  13  P.  D.,  39.) 

When  certificate  issues  to  allow  pension  in  a  claim  subsequently 
to  the  date  of  the  promulgation  of  order  No.  354  and  more  than 
three  years  elapse  before  an  attorney  interested  in  the  case  files  a 
request  for  fee,  the  Bureau  may  properly  decline  to  consider  his 
title  thereto. 

22.  Difficulty  and  Trouble. 

Fee — M^idow  and  minor — Difficulty  and  trouble.     (Mary  A.  Burns, 
claimant;  James  P.  L.  Weems,  attorney,  14  P.  D.,  199.) 

In  a  widow's  claim  for  pension  inider  the  general  law  a  fee  in 
excess  of  $10  can  not  be  paid  an  attorney  for  securing  increase 
on  account  of  a  minor  child,  unless  the  prosecution  of  the  claim, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions,  involves  such 
difficulty  and  trouble  as  warrants  him  to  allow  a  fee  in  excess  of 
$10,  wherein  articles  of  agreement  are  filed  which  he  approves. 

23.  Disloyalty-^oint  Resolution  of  July  1,  1902. 

Fee — Disloyalty — Joint  resolution  July  7,  1902 — Attorneys — Rec- 
ognition.    (William  P.  Taylor,  claimant;  J.  B.  Cralle  &  Co., 
attorneys,  14  P.  D.,  276.) 

In  claims  for  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  in  which 
payment  of  pension  has  been  barred  by  the  provisions  of  section 
4716,  Revised  Statutes,  United  States,  where  an  attorney  is  the 
first,  subsequently  to  the  passage  of  the  joint  resolution  of  Con- 
gress of  July  1,  1902,  to  cooperate  with  the  claimant  in  the  prose- 
cution of  a  case  in  which  he  has  been  properly  authorized  so  to* 
do,  such  attorney  may  have  title  to  the  fee. 

24.  Renewal  of  Pension. 

Fee — Renewal   of  pension — Increase.     (Isaac   Walker,   claimant; 
Cyrus  E.  Perkins,  attorney,  14  P.  D.,  256.) 

A  fee  in  excess  of  $2  can  not  be  certified  to  an  attorney  for  his 
service  in  securing  renewal  of  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  from  date  of  holding  medical  examination,  at  a  higher  rate 
than  was  formerly  allowed  to  the  claimant  under  said  act,  the 
necessary  service  constituting  but  a  claim  for  increase  under  th(^ 
act  of  June  27,  1890. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  289 

25.  Rank. 

Fee — Rank — Rating.     (Sarah    O.    Stockwell,    mother;    Milo    B. 
Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  10  P.  D.,  428.) 

A  fee  in  excess  of  $10  can  not  be  paid  in  a  dependent  mother's 
or  any  other  case  under  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

26.  For  Removing  Charge  of  Desertion. 

Fee — Necessary  service — Removal  of  charge  of  desertion.     (Martin 
Welsh,  claimant;  David  A.  Gourick,  attorney,  15  P.  D.,  318.) 

Where  in  the  course  of  the  prosecution  of  a  claim  for  pension 
it  is  necessary  to  secure  the  removal  of  a  charge  of  desertion 
against  the  claimant,  for  service  in  securing  such  removal  the 
attorney  in  the  claim  for  pension  is  not  entitled  to  a  special  fee, 
but  is  restricted  in  his  charges  to  the  amount  of  fee  provided  for 
by  the  pension  laws. 

FEE  AGREEMENTS. 

See  Appeals  :  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  519) . 
See  Attorneys:  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  \M). 

See  Fee:  Nos.  1,  8,  14,  17,  19  (11  P.  D.,  508;  9  P.  D.,  355;  10  P.  D.. 
147,  108;    11  P.  D.,  202,  514;    12  P.  D.,  525). 

1.  Minor — Contesting  Minor. 

Fee  agreements — Attorneys — Minors.     (Minor  of  Henry  Elberson, 
claimant;  James  F.  Rusling,  attorney,  11  P.  D.,  150.) 

A  claim  for  pension  under  the  general  law  in  behalf  of  one 
as  minor  child  of  a  soldier,  when  antagonistic  to  a  claim  in 
behalf  of  others  as  minor  children  of  the  same  soldier  to  whom 
the  entire  pension  has  been  paid,  is  an  original  claim  for  pension 
within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  July  4,  1884,  and  when  valid 
fee  agreements  are  filed  in  such  a  claim  the  law  directs  that  they 
shall  be  recognized. 

FIRST  GRADE. 

See  Rate  and  Rating:  No.  7  (10  P.  D.,  443). 

FILING. 

See  Declarations:  No.  6  (11  P.  D.,  257,  420). 

FLORIDA  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (h),  15  (14  P.  D.,  383). 
See  Table  of  State  Statutes  for  14  P.  D. 

FLORIDA  WARS. 

See  Service:  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  394). 
33070—06 19 


290  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

FORFEITURE. 

See  Adulterous  Cohabitation:  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  62,  116,  327)  ;  No.  4 
(10  P.  D.,  286)  ;  No.  7  (14  P.  D.,  862)  ;  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  48). 

See  Attorneys  :  Nos.  7,  8,  9,  13  (11  P.  D.,  392 ;  10  P.  D.,  460 ;  9  P.  D., 
213;  11  P.  D.,  25;  13  P.  D.,  444;  14  P.  D.,  172). 

See  Fee  :  No.  11  (12  P.  D.,  239)  ;  No.  13  (10  P.  D.,  464)  ;  No.  17  (11  P. 
D.,  392). 

FOREIGN  DIVORCES. 

See  Divorce  :  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  303 ;  14  P.  D.,  173). 

FRAUD. 

See  Decree  of  Nullity  :  Nos.  2,  4,  7  (10  P.  D.,  284 ;  13  P.  D..  460 ;  15 

P.  D.,  286)  ;  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  470). 
See  Divorce  :  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  208,  236)  ;  No.  10  (15  P.  D.,  553). 
See  Division  of  Pension  :  No.  12  (13  P.  D.,  347.) 
See  Fee:  No.  7  (10  P.  D.,  150;  12  P.  D.,  441.) 
See  Jurisdiction  :  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  465.) 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (y)  (15  P.  D.,  211)  ;  No.  5  (10  P.  D.,  258). 
See  Practice  :  No.  27  (13  P.  D.,  465). 
See  Restoration:  No.  5  (15  P.  D.,  475). 

FRAUD  AND  MISTAKE. 

References. 

See  Reimbursement:  Nos.  1,  2.  3,  4  (10  P.  D.,  84;  11  P.  D.,  395;  12 

P.  D.,  289,  394;  13  P.  D.,  13,  201 ;  14  P.  D.,  152). 
See  Res  Judicata:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  179). 
See  Restoration  :  Nos.  2,  4  (14  P.  D.,  318;  14  P.  D.,  141)  ;  No.  6  (15 

P.  D.,  483). 

Index. 

1.  Reimbursement 

2.  Clerical  error. 

3.  Fraud  on  part  of  claiiiiant. 

4.  Section  4720,  Revised  Statutes. 

1.  Reimbursement. 

Fraud  and  mistake — Reimbursement.  (Annie  Dempsey,  widow, 
9  P.  D.,  149.) 

The  soldier  was  pensioned  for  rheumatism  and  resulting  dis- 
ease of  the  heart.  The  widow^  stated  in  her  application  that  he 
died  of  disease  contracted  in  the  service  and  filed  a  copy  of  a 
public  record  giving  the  cause  of  death  as  "  paralysis  of  the 
heart,"  whereupon  her  claim  was  allowed.  It  was  subsequently 
ascertained  that  the  cause  of  death  was  inquired  into  by  a  coro- 
ner's jury  and  found  to  be  the  intemperate  use  of  intoxicants 
and  drugs,  and  her  pension  was  therefore  terminated. 

Held:  That  the  concealment  by  claimant  of  the  fact  that  a 
coroner's   inquest  was  had   amounted   to   fraud   and   justified 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  291 

recovery  of  the  amount  paid  under  the  old  law  from  the  pension 
subsequently  allowed  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Fraud   and   inistake — Reimbursement.     (Alexander    W.    Dees,    9 
P.  D.,  455.) 

1.  It  appearing  that  the  disability  of  this  appellant  from  dis- 
ease of  eyes  can  not  be  attributed  to  the  results  of  sunstroke  in 
service,  and  said  disease  of  eyes  not  being  shown  by  the  evidence 
to  have  been  otherwise  due  to  his  military  service,  the  action  ter- 
minating the  pension  granted  him  on  account  thereof,  and  reject- 
ing his  claim  for  restoration  of  the  same,  was  proper  and  is 
affirmed,  although  the  ground  stated  for  said  action  was 
erroneous. 

2.  It  being  shown  that  the  nervous  affection  of  face  from 
Avhich  this  appelant  suffered  prior  to  his  enlistment  was  not 
a  factor  in  the  disability  from  disease  of  eyes  for  which  he  was 
first  erroneously  pensioned,  and  had  no  connection  therewith, 
pathologically  or  otherwise,  all  basis  for  a  charge  of  fraud  in 
obtaining  said  pension  is  eliminated  from  this  case,  the  same 
having  been  granted  not  through  fraud  on  his  part,  or  a  mistake 
of  fact  on  the  part  of  the  Pension  Bureau,  but  merely  as  the 
result  of  an  erroneous  judgment  on  the  evidence,  and  no  legal 
grounds  exist  for  withholding  payment  of  his  present  pension 
to  reimburse  the  Government  for  former  payments  made  to  him 
under  his  original  pension  certificate  as  a  result  of  such  erroneous 
judgment.     (Christian  May,  8  P.  D.,  71.) 

Fraud  and  mistake — Reimbursement.     (Annie  Cooke,  widow,  12 
P.  D.,  116.) 

The  evidence  showing  that  the  appellant  made  a  fraudulent 
application  in  1866,  upon  which  pension  was  allowed  and  paid,  it 
is  immaterial  whether  such  pension  was  actually  received  by  her 
or  was  (as  is  alleged)  appropriated  by  her  attorney.  In  either 
event  the  Government  may  reimburse  itself  by  withholding 
current  pension  due  her. 

Fraud  and  mistake — Reimbursement — Restoration.     (Camden  L. 
Hill,  MP.  D.,  57.) 

It  appearing  from  the  evidence  of  the  experts  that  soldier's 
disease  of  eyes  for  which  he  was  pensioned  was  due  to  gonor- 
rheal opthalmia,  for  which  reason  his  name  was  dropped  from 
the  roll,  the  rejection  of  his  claim  for  restoration  of  pension  was 
proper;  but  us  it  does  not  appear  that  soldier  knew  said  disease 
of  eyes  was  due  to  said  cause  when  he  was  prosecuting  his  claim 
for  pension,  but  had  good  reason  to  believe  it  due  to  a  severe 
cold,  he  was  not  guilty  of  fraud  in  obtaining  the  allowance  of 
said  pension,  and  the  action  withholding  his  pension  granted 


292  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  to  reimburse  the  Government  for 
the  money  erroneously  paid  under  the  general  law,  was  error 
and  is  reversed. 

2.  Clerical  Error. 

Rewihursement — Fraud    and    mistake — Evidence.        (Joseph    B. 
Wilson,  11  P.  D.,  308.) 

While  it  is  evident  that  the  allowance  which  it  is  proposed  to 
recover  w^as  due  to  a  clerical  error,  yet  as,  from  an  examination 
of  the  evidence,  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  pensioner  was  not  justly 
entitled  to  what  he  received,  it  is  held  that  recovery  by  with- 
holding current  pension  should  not  be  enforced. 

3.  Fraud  on  Part  of  Claimant. 

Fraud  and  mistake  —  Reimbursement  —  Evidence.       (Sarah    M. 
Decker,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  200.) 

The  evidence  obtained  by  a  special  investigation  having  clearly 
shown  that  the  diseases  of  which  the  soldier  died  existed  prior 
to  his  enlistment  and  that  the  claimant  was  in  a  position  to  know 
of  their  existence,  it  is  held  that  her  claim  for  pension,  on  the 
ground  that  said  diseases  originated  in  the  service,  was  fraudu- 
lent, and  that  the  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  was 
properly  withheld  for  the  purpose  of  recovering  the  amount  paid 
upon  said  claim. 

4.  Section  4720,  Revised  Statutes. 

Fraud — Section  1^720^  Jievised  Statutes — Suspension.     (Henry  E. 
Van  Trees,  13  P.  D.,  428.) 

No  appeal  lies  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  from  the  action 
of  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  suspending  j^ayment  of  pen- 
sion under  the  provisions  of  section  4720  of  the  Revised  Statutes 
for  fraud  in  procuring  a  special  act  until  the  propriety  of  repeal- 
ing such  special  act  can  be  considered  by  Congress. 

FINAL  ACTION. 

See  Appeals  :   No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  1G4)  ;   No.  7  (15  P.  D.,  265). 
See  Practice:   No.  1  (15  P.  D.,'362). 


FUND. 


See  Fee:    No.  4  (9  P.  D.,  402;  11  P.  D.,  149)  ;    No.  5  (9  P.  D.,  117)  ; 
No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  109)  ;   No.  17  (15  P.  D.,  273). 


GANGRENE. 

See  Death  Cause:   No.  8  (12  P.  D.,  354). 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  293 

GEORGIA,  LAWS  OF. 

See  Table  of  State  Statutes  for  11  P.  D.,  229. 

GOOD  FAITH. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (p)   (18  P.  D.,  08)  ;  No.  2  (y)   (1.5  P.  D.,  211)  . 
No.  2  (bb)   (15  P.  D.,  208). 

GILPIN'S  BATTALION. 

See  Service:    No.  4' (9  P.  D.,  108). 

GRAY'S  BATTALION. 

See  Commencement:    No.  9  (14  P.  D.,  420). 
See  Increase:    No.  7  (14  P.  D.,  28.5). 

GRADE  RATES. 

See  Rate  and  Rating  :  Nos.  0,  11  (11  P.  D.,  105;  9  P.  D.,  125). 

GRANDCHILDREN  OF  SOLDIER. 

See  Accrued  Pension:    No.  3  (9  P.  D.,  393). 

GUARDIANS. 

References. 


k 


See  Accrued  Pension:   No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  351). 

See  .Jurisdiction:   No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  147). 

See  Payment  of  Pension  :   No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  197). 


Index. 


1.  Payment  of  pension  to. 

2.  Choice  between  contesting. 

3.  May  refuse  to  recognize. 


1.  Payment  of  Pension  to. 

Guardians — Payment     of     pension — Jurisdiction.     (Edward     W. 
Moore,  9  P.  D.,  55.) 

1.  The  words  appearing  in  the  act  of  August  8,  1882,  "  But 
the  payment  to  persons  laboring  under  legal  disabilities  may  be 
made  to  the  guardians  of  such  persons,"  are  not  mandatory,  but 
permissive. 

2.  The  pension  system  now  in  force,  and  the  whole  thereof,  in 
substance  and  in  form  of  procedure,  is  without  the  plane  of 
State  control  and  exclusively  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
United  States. 

3.  Pajanent  of  pension  to  the  guardian  of  a  pensioner  under 
legal  disability  is  not  obligatory,  and  if  the  Commissioner  of 
Pensions  shall  become  satisfied  that  the  pensioner's  interests 
would  be  better  subserved  by  payment  to  the  pensioner  himself 


294  PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   (JLAIMS. 

he  may  so  direct;  but  until  there  is  evidence  warranting  the 
belief  that  the  pensioner  is  deprived  of  his  rights  under  the  pen- 
sion laws,  by  the  guardian,  and  the  appointing  court  will  not 
administer  relief,  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  will  not  be  war- 
ranted in  refusing  payment  to  such  guardian. 

2.  Choice  Between  Contesting. 

Guardianship — Minors — Pension   fund.     (Calista   A.   Stombaugh, 
guardian  of  minor  of  Daniel  T.  Hall,  12  P.  D.,  1.) 

Soldier  died  August  5,  1884,  leaving  the  appellant,  his  widow, 
and  a  minor  child,  William  P.,  under  16  years  of  age.  The 
widow,  mother  of  said  minor,  remarried  December  25,  1884. 
Said  minor  was  born  July  29,  1883,  and  has  resided  with  his 
uncle,  David  H.  Hall,  continuously  since  he  was  16  months  old, 
who  was  duly  appointed  his  guardian  by  the  district  court  in 
the  State  of  Iowa  September  5,  1890.  October  4,  1890,  said 
guardian  filed  a  claim  for  pension  as  such  guardian  under  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890,  and  appellant  also  filed  a  claim  for  pension 
under  said  act  as  mother  of  said  minor  January  31,  1891,  and  was 
subsequently,  September  7,  1891,  appointed  guardian  of  said 
minor  by  the  probate  court  of  Hubbard  County,  Minn.  On 
January  31,  1899,  her  said  claim  was  rejected  on  the  following 
ground :  "  That  the  claim  for  the  minor  under  the  act  of  June 
27,  1890,  has  this  day  been  allowed,  and  payment  ordered  to  be 
made  to  David  H.  Hall,  the  guardian,  who  acquired  authority 
anterior  to  the  filing  of  this  claim  or  the  appointment  of  Calista 
A.  Stombaugh  as  guardian."  It  is  held  that  Hall  having  been 
recognized  as  a  fit  person  to  act  as  agent  of  the  Government  to 
receive  and  disburse  the  money  of  his  ward,  and  he  having 
accepted  the  agency  thus  imposed,  and  nothing  appearing  in  the 
record  showing  that  he  has  broken  its  terms,  the  Bureau  action 
rejecting  appellant's  claim  for  recognition  in  the  claim  was 
without  error. 

Any  contest  over  the  right  of  possession  of  the  minor  or  his 
property  must  be  relegated  to  the  local  courts  for  decision. 

3.  May  Eefuse  to  Eecognize. 

Jurisdiction — State     court — Guardians — Payment,     (Charles     F. 
Eussell,  15  P.  D.,  364.) 

The  decree  of  a  State  court  making  a  party  a  guardian  over 
the  estate  of  an  insane  person,  and  of  his  person  when  he  comes 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  said  State,  does  not  give  said  guardian 
authority  over  the  person  of  the  said  ward  if  he  be  without  the 
jurisdiction  of  said  State;  neither  does  it  give  him  authority 
over  the  estate  of  said  ward  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court 
making  the  appointment. 


PENSION   AND    BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  295 

GUARDIANSHIP. 

See  Accrued  Pension  :  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  351). 

GUNSHOT  WOUND. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  Nos.  11,  IG,  22  (13  P.  D.,  107;  14  P.  D., 
542;  15  P.  D.,  249). 

GUNSHOT  WOUND  AND  PARALYSIS  AGITANS. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  11  (13  P.  D.,  107). 

GOVERNMENT  HOSPITAL  FOR  THE  INSANE. 

See  Insane  Person  :  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  430). 

HAWKINS  TAYLOR  COMMISSION. 

See  Service:  No.  10  (10  P.  D.,  270). 

HEARSAY. 

See  Marriage:  No.  G  (13  P.  D.,  96). 

HELPLESS  MINOR. 

References. 

See  Commencement:  No.  1  (P.  D.,  189,  226). 

Index. 

1,  Generally. 

£.  Widow's  increase  on  account  of. 

3.  Disability. 

4.  Special  act. 

1.  Generally. 
Insane  or  helpless  minor — Act  of  June  27^  1890.     (Helena,  minor 
of  Joseph  Cox,  9  P.  D.,  2(5.) 

A  claimant  for  pension  under  the  first  proviso  of  section  3,  act 

of  June  27,  1890,  as  a  helpless  minor,  who  was  over  the  age  of  16 

years  at  the  date  of  the  soldier's  death,  has  no  pensionable  status. 

Helpless   minor — Act  June   27^   1890.     (Ellie   Morris,    widow,   9 

P.  D.,  353.) 

A  child  who  is  an  incurable  epileptic,  having  a  falling  fit  once 
a  w^eek,  on  an  average,  and  nervous  attacks  much  oftener,  who  is 
vigorous  in  body  but  dull  mentally,  who  is  able  to  attend  to  his 
personal  wants  except  when  suffering  from  an  epileptic  seizure, 
and  can  perform  some  remunerative  labor  but  not  nearly  suffi- 
cient to  afford  him  a  support,  is  "  permanently  helpless  "  in  the 
contemplation  of  the  law,'  and  the  pension  on  his  account  should 
be  continued. 
Helpless  mijior — Act  June  27^  1890.  (Minor  of  William  Johnson, 
9  P.  D.,  452.) 

Claimant  is  24  years  old,  has  been  since  1885  an  inmate  of  an 


296  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

asylum  for  .feeble-minded  persons,  does  not  know  her  age,  is  mi- 
able  to  comprehend  numbers  above  5,  is  capable  of  receiving  only 
the  most  elementary  instruction,  and,  in  the  opinion  of  the  sur- 
geon detailed  to  examine  her,  is  permanently  incapacitated  for 
earning  a  living  and  requires  the  care  and  attendance  of  another 
person  daily. 

Held:  Tliat  she  is  entitled  to  continuance  of  pension  as 
claimed. 

2.  Widow's  Increase  on  Account  of. 

Helpless  minor — Act  June  27^  1890 — Widow^s  increase.     (Frances 
Stetzell,  widow,  9  P.  D.,  9.) 

Evidence  shows  that  the  child  claimed  for  (for  w^hom  pension 
was  received  till  she  was  16  years  of  age)  is  afflicted  with  in- 
curable epilepsy,  rendering  her  liable  to  frequent  spasms  and 
spells  of  unconsciousness,  and  w  hich  has  made  her  weak  and  of 
low  vitality,  so  that  she  can  perform  only  the  lightest  household 
duties  and  no  remunerative  labor,  besides  causing  her  to  be  the 
subject  of  constant  watchfulness  and  of  some  aid  and  attendance. 
Held :  That  she  is  permanently  helpless  in  the  contemplation 
of  the  law,  and  the  pension  on  her  account  should  be  continued. 

3.  Disability. 

hisane  or  helpless  minor — Act  June  27^  1890.     (Minor  of  Philip 
J.  Conklin,  10  P.  D.,  368.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  the  claimant,  by  reason  of  mental  in- 
firmity, is  incapable  of  the  intelligent  pursuit  of  any  vocation, 
or  of  obtaining  remunerative  employment. 

Held:  That  she  has  a  pensionable  status  as  an  insane  or  help- 
less minor  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Helpless  minor — Aid  and  attendance — Act  ,of  June  27^  1890 — 
Minors.     (Isabella  Cornell,  helpless  minor,  15  P.  D.,  407.) 

As  applicant  is  so  disabled  physically  and  mentally  as  to  be 
practically  unable  to  earn  an  independent  support,  and  requires 
daily  aid  and  attendance,  she  is  fairly  entitled  to  continuance  of 
pension  as  a  "  permanently  helpless  "  child,  under  the  first  pro- 
viso of  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Insane  or  helpless  minor — Disability.     (Minor  of  Reuben  Alden, 
lOP.  D.,22). 

Evidence  shows  that  said  child  has  been  afflicted  from  birth  by 
depression  of  breast  bone  upon  the  spine,  displacing  vital  organs, 
and  rendering  him  extremely  nervous  and  weak  to  such  an  extent 
that  he  has  been  mentally  and  physically  unable  to  care  for  or 
support  himself.  He  can  not  perform  effective  or  remunerative 
labor  and  is  considered  permanently  helpless,  in  the  contempla- 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  297 

tion  of  the  proviso  to  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
and  entitled  to  a  continuance  of  his  pension  after  arriving  at  the 
age  of  16  years. 
Insane  or  helpless  minors — Act  of  June  ^7, 1890.     (Elmer  A.  Rod- 
key,  helpless  minor,  10  P.  D.,  224.) 

Claimant  is  unable  to  perform  any  manual  labor,  can  not  bear 
his  weight  upon  the  right  lower  limb,  has  lateral  curvature  of  the 
spine,  his  right  arm  is  atrophied  and  wasted  away,  he  is  slightly 
idiotic,  and  is  unable  to  dress  and  undress  himself. 

Held:  That  he  is  so  permanently  helpless,  within  the  meaning 
of  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  as  to  be  entitled 
to  a  continuance  of  his  pension  as  a  minor  under  the  provisions 
of  said  act. 
Helpless  minor' — Act  June  ^7, 1890 — Mental  deficiency.  (Minor  of 
Myers  Horn,  12  P.  D.,  365.) 

This  child,  although  sound  in  body,  being  so  deficient  mentally 
that  he  can  not  learn,  has  no  memory,  will  work  only  under  con- 
stant direct  personal  oversight,  and  will  not  be  employed  by  anj^- 
one,  even  for  his  board  only,  is  helpless  within  the  meaning  of  the 
law. 
Helpless  minor — Act  of  June  ^7,  1890 — Disability.  (Freddie  J. 
Toumine,  helpless  minor,  12  P.  D.,  527.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  on  account  of  permanent  disabilities 
the  minor  is  unable  to  perform  manual  labor  and  is  a  charge  upon 
those  bound  to  support  him. 

Held:  That  the  minor  is  "permanently  helpless"  within  the 
meaning  of  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  and 
entitled  to  a  continuance  of  his  pension  as  such. 
Vested   right — Act  Decennher  21.,   1893 — Notice — Dropping — Re- 
issue— Insane  minor.     (Nancy  E.  Sherard,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  478.) 

1.  Adjudication  and  admission  of  a  claim,  evinced  by  issue  of 
a  certificate  and  delivery  of  the  same  to  the  claimant,  constitutes 
a  grant  of  pension  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  December  21, 
1893.  While  such  pension  can  not  be  withheld  or  suspended  with- 
out due  notice  as  required  by  said  act,  yet  a  certificate  erroneously 
issued  and  delivered  may  be  canceled,  and  a  new  certificate  in  lieu 
thereof  issued  giving  effect  to  the  adjudication  of  the  claim,  with- 
out notice  under  the  act  of  December  21,  1893.  But  the  cancella- 
tion of  a  certificate,  coupled  with  a  refusal  to  issue  one  in  lieu 
thereof  on  the  ground  of  a  reversal  of  judgment  on  the  merits  of 
the  claim,  requires  notice  under  said  act.  Withholding  or  suspen- 
sion of  pension  in  this  event  is  the  result  not  of  cancellation  of 
the  certificate  erroneously  issued,  but  a  refusal  to  issue  the  new 
certificate. 


298  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

2.  Insanity  of  a  minor  child  need  not  be  permanent  in  its 
nature  to  entitle  the  mother  to  continuance  of  pension  on  that 
account  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890.  Pension  may  be  granted 
to  continue  "  during  the  period  of  such  disability."  On  the  ad- 
mitted cessation  of  the  disability  pension  may  be  terminated 
without  notice  under  the  act  of  December  21,  1893. 

4.  Special  Act. 

Helpless  minor — Act  June  ^7,  1890 — Special  act.  (Mattie  Grazi- 
ani,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  331.) 

The  claimant's  name  having  been  placed  on  the  rolls  subject 
to  the  provisions  and  limitations  of  the  pension  laAv,  by  special 
act,  she  is  entitled  to  the  $2  increase  provided  for  in  the  third 
section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  if  the  minor  on  whose  account 
claim  is  made  is  shown  to  be  helpless. 

The  evidence  in  the  claim  making  out  a  j^rima  facie  case, 
the  papers  are  returned  for  special  examination  and  medical 
examination  on  the  question  of  the  minor's  helplessness. 

(Cert.  No.  252980,  Mabel   belnless  child  of  George  W.  Ham,  Co.  A,  2.5th  Ind.  Inf.) 

Law  Division,  January  30,  1905. 

Respectfully  returned  to  the  chief  of  the  Board  of  Review. 

The  papers  in  this  claim  were  transmitted  to  this  division  for 
an  opinion  as  to  whether  '*  the  pensionable  status  of  the  helpless 
child  is  in  any  way  abridged  or  otherwise  modified  by  the  fact 
of  her  marriage." 

The  papers  in  the  claim  show  that  certificate  was  originally 
issued  on  March  26,  1889,  at  $17  per  month,  with  $2  additional 
l^er  month  for  each  of  three  (3)  minor  children  under  the  age  of 
sixteen  years,  payments  to  commence  on  October  1,  1877,  and  to 
continue  until  the  youngest  child  became  sixteen  years  of  age. 

On  Sept.  5,  1890,  and  Sept.  12,  1894,  applications  were  filed 
in  behalf  of  the  child  Mabel  praying  a  continuance  of  the  pen- 
sion to  her  under  the  provisions  of  the  third  section  of  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  providing  for  the  continuance  of  pension  to  a 
helpless  minor  child.  On  due  proof  of  helplessness  certificate 
was  renewed  by  issue  of  January  9,  1896,  to  continue  during 
helplessness,  and  payments  at  the  rate  of  $17  per  month,  with 
$2  additional,  have  been  made  since  that  time  to  said  child. 
Evidence  recently  filed  shows  that  the  pensioner  was  married 
on  November  2,  1904. 

By  the  first  proviso  of  section  three  of  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  it  is  enacted  that  in  case  "  a  minor  child  is  insane,  idiotic, 
or  otherwise  permanently  helpless,  the  pension  shall  continue 
during  the  life  of  said  child  or  during  the  period  of  such  dis- 
ability." 


PENSIOK    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  299 

As  has  be.en  held  by  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions,  under  date 
of  September  14,  1904,  in  the  case  of  Daisy  D.  Mcintosh,  help- 
less child  of  James  D.  Mcintosh,  cert.  No.  467268,  there  are 
three  (3)  conditions  under  which  a  minor  child  may  be  entitled 
to  a  continuance  of  pension  under  the  proviso  just  quoted: 

First.  Wiere  the  child  is  disabled  by  insanity. 

Second.  Where  it  is  an  idiot. 

Third.  Where  it  is  in  a  state  of  ''  permanent  helplessness, 
which  is  a  disability  dependent  upon  the  facts  of  the  case." 

The  Commissioner  further  decided  that  ''  When  either  of  the 
three  disabilities  have  ceased  to  exist,  the  pension  ceases.  *  *  * 
The  question  of  permanent  helplessness  is  a  physical  question 
and  not  a  matter  of  dollars  and  cents," 

Inasmuch  as  the  statute,  in  conferring  title  upon  a  class  of 
children  who  are  insane,  idiotic,  or  otherwise  permanently  help- 
less, does  not  take  into  regard  the  social  status  of  such  child,  it 
is  apparent  that  the  marriage  of  a  minor  child  who  belongs  to 
one  of  the  three  classes  mentioned  does  not,  of  itself,  operate  to 
terminate  the  pension,  any  more  than  the  marriage  of  a  minor 
child  under  the  age  of  sixteen  years  and  not  insane,  idiotic,  or 
otherwise  permanently  helpless  acts  as  a  bar  to  the  payment  of 
pension  until  such  child  has  attained  the  age  of  sixteen  years. 
In  other  w^ords,  the  permanent  helplessness  of  a  minor  child  is 
a  fact  which  is  capable  of  demonstration,  and  the  child's  title  to 
a  continuance  of  pension  because  of  permanent  helplessness  is 
affected  only  by  evidence  tending  to  show  discontinuance  of  such 
helplessness  or  a  recovery  from  the  disability  w^hich  originally 
warranted  the  granting  of  the  pension  under  the  provisions  of 
the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

In  the  case  at  bar  the  Office  regarded  the  evidence  on  file  at 
the  time  of  the  issue  of  January  9,  1896,  as  giving  the  minor 
title  of  the  proviso  under  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  June 
27,  1890.  The  evidence  recently  filed  show^s  that  the  disability 
with  which  the  child  Mabel  was  afflicted  is  as  great  now  as  it 
was  when  the  certificate  was  issued,  and  inasmuch  as  permanent 
helplessness  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  is  a  question  of  fact 
entirely,  there  appears  to  be  no  reason  why  her  name  should  be 
dropped  from  the  rolls  because  of  her  recent  marriage. 

Further  action  by  this  Division  is  unnecessary. 

S.  A.  Cuddy, 
Chief  of  Law  Division, 

Approved : 

J.  L.  Davenport, 

Acting  Commissioner. 


300  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

HEMIPLEGIA. 

See  Disability:   No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  50). 

HERNIA. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:   No.  0  (13  P.  D.,  184). 

HONORABLE  DISCHARGE. 

See  Desertion  :  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  -x,  4  (f),  0,  7  (9  P.  D.,  382,  255,  407,  416, 
442;  10  P.  D.,  355,  141;  11  P.  D.,  13,  332,  362,  373;  12  P.  D.,  379, 
450;  13  P.  D.,  346;  14  P.  D.,  352,  380,  466,  552;  15  P.  D.,  63,  94, 
215,  276,  437). 

See  Discharge:   No.  .2  (9  P.  D.,  123,  311). 

See  Service:   No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  201). 

Honorahle    discharge  —  Special    act  —  Act    January    29^    1887. 
(Thomas  J.  Morman,  14  P.  D.,  195.) 

The  records  of  the  War  Department  showing  that  claimant 
was  honorably  discharged  from  the  service  in  the  war  with 
Mexico,  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  has  no  lawful  authority 
to  question  such  record  and  must  accept  the  fact  as  certified  to 
him  by  the  Secretary  of  War. 

HOME  GUARDS. 

See  Service:    No.  9  (9  P.  D.,  362). 

HUSBAND  AND  WIFE. 

See  Dependent  Parents  :   No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  297 ;   14  P.  D.,  267,  294). 
See  Marriage:  No.  2  (o)  (12  P.  D.,  497). 

IDENTITY. 

Reference. 

See  Evidence:  No.  5  (9  P.  D.,  185). 
Index. 

1.  Evidence  sufficient  to  establish. 

2.  Where  not  established. 

1.  Evidence  Sufficient  to  Establish. 

Identity — Service.     (John   H.   Thompson,   alias   John    Clark,    10 
P.  D.,  33.) 

The  record  shows  that  John  Clark  was  enrolled  as  a  substitute 
for  one  AVilliam  H.  Converse,  February  11,  1863,  and  was  dis- 
charged November  11,  1863,  by  reason  of  the  expiration  of  his 
term  of  enlistment.  The  testimony  of  persons  who  knew  claim- 
ant and  met  him  in  the  service  where  he  was  serving  under  the 
name  of  John  Clark ;  of  his  sisters,  who  corresponded  with  him 
under  the  name  of  John  Clark,  of  Company  D,  Sixteenth  Mich- 
igan Volunteers;  the  testimony  of  William  H.   Converse,  and 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  301 

descriptive  list  of  said  Clark,  as  to  his  personal  description, 
show  that  the  claimant  is  the  identical  John  Clark  who  served  in 
said  company  and  regiment,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he 
denies  that  he  enlisted  as  a  substitute. 

2.  Where  not  Established. 

Identity — Widow^s  claim — Act  June  27^  1890.     (Mary  E.  Washing- 
ton, widow,  12  P.  D.,  228.) 

Appellant  filed  her  claim  for  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  as  the  widow  of  one  George  Washington,  late  of  Carlisle, 
Pa.,  who,  she  alleged,  served  in  Company  E,  Fifth  Massachu- 
setts Volunteer  Cavalry.  On  April  3,  1894,  one  George  Wash- 
ington, residing  in  Boston,  applied  for  a  pension  as  the  person 
who  served  in  said  company  and  regiment,  and  his  claim  was 
admitted  after  a  special  examination,  November  9,  1896,  appel- 
lant's claim  having  been  rejected  September  8,  1896,  on  the 
ground  that  the  evidence  failed  to  show  that  her  deceased  hus- 
band was  the  person  who  served  in  said  company.  Subse- 
quently she  filed  additional  testimony  to  establish  the  identity 
of  her  late  husband,  but  the  former  rejection  of  her  claim  was 
adhered  to.  It  appears  that  appellant  was  in  possession  of  the 
discharge  certificate  of  the  George  Washington  w^ho  rendered  the 
service  in  said  organization  when  she  filed  her  claim  for  pen- 
sion, and  it  appeared  that  the  same  was  in  the  possession  of  her 
late  husband  as  early  as  1874,  but  it  appeared  just  as  clear  that 
it  had  at  one  time  been  in  the  hands  of  the  George  Washington 
of  Boston,  and  the  personal  description  therein  w^as  unques- 
tionably that  of  the  latter.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  a  large  num- 
ber of  witnesses  of  good  reputation,  including  comrades,  one  of 
whom  was  a  white  lieutenant  in  said  company,  testified  with  the 
pensioner  before  them  that  he  was  the  identical  George  Wash- 
ington who  rendered  the  service  in  said  organization,  and  the 
superior  standing  and  character  of  the  witnesses  testifying  in 
behalf  of  the  pensioner  as  compared  with  those  testifying  for 
appellant,  it  is  held  that  the  evidence  does  not  show  that  her 
deceased  husband  was  the  soldier  who  rendered  the  service  as 
George  Washington  in  Company  E,  Fifth  Massachusetts  Cav- 
alry, and  her  claim  for  pension  was  properly  rejected. 

Identity — Evidence.     (Millie  Herlong,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  371.) 

Claimant  having  failed  to  satisfactorily  prove  that  her  hus- 
band was  identical  with  the  soldier  on  account  of  whose  services 
and  death  pension  is  claimed,  her  claim  was  properly  rejected. 

ILLICIT  COHABITATION. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (t)  (15  P.  D.,  240). 


302  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

ILLINOIS  LAWS. 

See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  4  (14  P.  D.,  294). 

See  Divorce:  No.  1   (10  P.  D.,  1)  ;  No.  2  (13  P.  D.,  68)  ;  No.  3  (11 

P.  D.,  406). 
See  Marriage:  No.  2  (k)  (12  P.  D.,  481;  15  P.  D.,  186)  ;  No.  1  (14 

P.  D.,  43)  ;  No.  2  (d)  (14  P.  D.,  265)  ;  No.  2  (f)  (15  P.  D.,  290)  ; 

No.  2  (u)  (15  P.  D.,  236)  ;  No.  3  (a)  (10  P.  D.,  294;  11  P.  D.,  320)  ; 

No.  4  (12  P.  D.,  326)  ;  No.  12  (14  P.  D.,  442 ;  9  P.  D.,  243 ;  11  P.  D., 

43). 
See  Table  of  State  Statutes  for  14  P.  D. 

IMPEDIMENT. 

See  Adulterous  Cohabitation:  Nos.  6,  10  (14  P.  D.,  242;  12  P.  D., 

258). 
See  Marriage:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  446)  ;  No.  2  (e)  (15  P.  D.,  253)  ;  Nos. 

2   (f),  2   (k),  2   (n),  2   (q),  2   (s),  2   (t),  2   (y),    2   (bb),  2   (ee), 

2  (gg),  and  2  (oo)  (14  P.  D.,  355;  15  P.  D.,  290;  12  P.  D.,  481 ;  11 
P.  D.,  97  ;  14  P.  D.,  349 ;  11  P.  D.,  114 ;  14  P.  D.,  417,  554  ;  15  P.  D., 
211 ;  12  P.  D.,  306  ;  12  P.  D.,  340 ;  14  P.  D.,  365  ;  15  P.  D.,  208,  413 ; 
10  P.  D.,  211 ;  14  P.  D.,  212;  10  P.  D.,  15).  See  also:  Nos.  3  (a), 

3  (b),  and  3  (c)  (9  P.  D.,  139;  12  P.  D.,  106,  312,  333,  417)  ; 
No.  4  (9  P.  D.,  497;  10  P.  D.,  179,  220;  12  P.  D.,  134,  326,  505;  13 
P.  D.,  90,  402^  14  P.  D.,  310)  ;  No.  7  (9  P.  D.,  127,  209)  ;  No.  8  (15 
P.  D.,  283)  ;  No.  9  (10  P.  D.,  192)  ;  No.  12  (10  P.  D.,  162 ;  12  P.  D., 
292,  348)  ;  No.  15  (10  P.  D.,  254)  ;  No.  2  (r)  (15  P.  D.,  464)  ;  No. 
2  (s)  (15  P.  D.,  462)  ;  No.  2  (b)  (15  P.  D.,  488)  ;  No.  2  (p)  (15 
P.  D.,  530)  ;  No.  2  (bh)  (15  P.  D.,  543;  No.  2  (ii)  (15  P.  D.,  540). 

IN  ARREST  AWAITING  TRIAL. 

See  Line  of  Duty;  No.  14  (14  P.  D.,  213). 

INCURRENCE. 

* 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  13  (13  P.  D.,  313). 
See  Evidence:  No.  4  (9  P.  D.,  237,  392;  10  P.  D.,  92). 
See  Line  of  Duty:  Nos.  6,  11,  15   (12  P.  D.,  464;  15  P.  D.,  54;  11 
P.  D.,  516;  13  P.  D.,  358). 


INCUBATION. 


INCOME. 


See  Line  of  Duty  :  No.  15  (13  P.  D.,  358). 
See  Origin  :  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  329). 


See  Dependent  Parents  :  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  297;  12  P.  D.,  129,  131,  361, 

472;  13  P.  D.,  241,  432;  14  P.  D.,  267,  271,  294). 
See  Dependent  Widow:  No.  1  (13  P.  D.,  125;  15  P.  D.,  257)  ;  No.  4 

(12  P.  D.,  266;  13  P.  D.,  448;    14  P.  D.,  80,  281,  360;  15  P.  D.,  127. 

203). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  303 


INCREASE. 


References. 

See  Aid  and  Attendance:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  307,  349,  423,  481)  ;  No.  2 

(12  P.  D.,  70,  215)  ;  No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  473)  ;  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  503). 
See  Appeals:  No.  6  (13  P.  D.,  170). 
See  Attorneys:  Nos.  8,  9,  11,  14   (10  P.  D.,  460;     9  P.  D.,  375;  11 

P.  D.,  429;  12  P.  D.,  221 ;  11  P.  D.,  492). 
See  Commencement:  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4,  7,  8  (9  P.  D.,  216,  503;  10  P.  D., 

66 ;  14  P.  D.,  69 ;  9  P.  D.,  313,  322 ;  11  P.  D.,  380 ;  12  P.  D.,  17). 
See  Evidence:  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  333). 
See  Fee  :  Nos.  1,  5,  11,  24  (9  P.  D.,  147 ;  11  P.  D.,  508 ;    9  P.  D.,  117 ; 

12  P.  D.,  239;  14  P.  D.,  256). 
See  Line  of  Duty  :  No.  8  (11  P.  D.,  191). 
See  Notice:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  21). 
See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  11  (13  P.  D.,  107). 
See  Practice:  Nos.  4,  7,  13,  16,  19  (9  P.  D.,  285,  290;  9  P.  D.,  288; 

11  P.  D.,  451 ;    11  P.  D.,  122;  13  P.  D.,  304). 
See  Rate  and  Rating  :  Nos.  5,  8  (15  P.  D.,  207;  12  P.  D.,  294,  331). 
See  Reimbursement:  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  13).- 
See  Rerating:  Nos.  1,  3,  6  (12  P.  D.,  212,  283;  15  P.  D.,  332). 
See  Restoration  :  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  37). 

Index. 

1.  Specific  disability. 

2.  Act  of  January  5,  1893. 

3.  Defective  vision. 

4.  Paralysis. 

5.  Act  of  March  4,  1890,  and  July  14,  1892. 

6.  Act  March  19,  1886. 

7.  Act  January  5,  1893. 

8.  Practice. 

9.  Act  of  August  4,  1886. 
10.  Third  grade. 

1.  Specific  Disability. 

Increase — Act  March  3^  1886 — Sjyeci-fic  disability.     (John  R.  Har- 
low, 9  P.  D.,  54.) 

Increase  of  pension  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1885,  relating 
to  pension  on  account  of- loss  of  arm  at  the  shoulder  joint  can 
not  commence  prior  to  that  date.  (Nichols's  appeal,  4  P.  D., 
213.) 

Increase  rate — Act  August  4,  1886.     (Alexander  P.  McElroy,  9 
P.  D.,  401.) 

The  first  provision  of  the  act  of  August  4,  1886,  does  not  in- 
crease pensions  for  disability  from  other  causes  than  the  loss  of 
a  hand  or  foot  or  total  disability  in  the  same.  It  does  not  in- 
crease pensions  for  disabilities  equivalent  to  the  loss  of  a  hand 
or  foot, 


304  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

2.  Act  of  January  5,  1893. 

Increase — Act  January  5, 1893.  (John  A.  Hardy,  10  P.  D.,  64.) 
It  appearing  that  this  pensioner  has  a  life  estate  in  and  the 
use  and  benefit  of  15  acres  of  good  farming  land,  upon  which 
he  resides,  and  personal  property  worth  from  $90  to  $100,  from 
which  he  derives  an  annual  income  of  about  $75,  he  can  not  be 
held  to  be  "  in  such  destitute  circumstances  "  that  the  pension 
of  $8  per  month  he  is  now  receiving  under  the  provisions  of  the 
act  of  January  29,  1887,  is  "  insufficient  to  provide  him  the  nec- 
essaries of  life." 

3.  Defective  Vision. 

Increase — Disability — Rate — Defective  vision.  (William  Moore, 
12  P.  D.,  87.) 

Appellant  is  adequately  pensioned  at  third  grade  for  the  degree 
of  disability  shown  to  result  from  the  loss  of  left  eye,  affecting 
sight  of  right  eye,  from  gunshot  wound,  it  appearing  that  he  has 
one-tenth  vision  remaining  in  right  eye,  which  would  enable  him 
to  perform  some  coarse  manual  labor  not  requiring  much  acuity 
of  vision,  and  not,  therefore,  incapacitating  for  all  manual  labor, 
entitling  him  to  the  second-grade  rate. 

Increase — Disability — Rate — Defective  vision.  (John  T.  Watson, 
12  P.  D.,  92.) 

In  the  case  at  bar  a  pension  at  the  rate  of  $17  per  month  is 
held  by  the  Bureau  to  be  adequate  to  the  degree  of  disability 
resulting  from  total  blindness  of  one  eye  and  loss  of  nine-tenths 
vision  in  the  other  eye  from  corneal  opacity.  In  the  case  of 
William  Moore  (12  P.  D.,  87),  considered  by  the  Department 
upon  appeal  November  30,  1901,  the  Bureau  had  allowed  the 
third-grade  rate  ($24  per  month)  for  loss  of  one  eye  from 
traumatism  and  loss  of  nine-tenths  vision  in  the  other  eye  from 
optic  atrophy  resulting  from  said  injury. 

The  inequality  in  the  rates  allowed  by  the  Bureau  in  these  two 
cases  for  practically  the  same  degree  of  inability  to  perform 
manual  labor  of  each  pensioner  by  reason  of  poor  vision  demon- 
strates the  advisability  of  adopting  some  method  by  which  a 
more  equable  adjustment  of  rates  in  cases  of  ocular  injuries  can 
be  made. 

In  the  judgment  of  the  Department  the  rules  laid  down,  the 
formulas  evolved,  and  the  tables  prepared  showing  the  relative 
values  of  the  different  defects  of  vision,  by  Wiirdemann  and 
Magnus,  in  their  joint  work  on  The  Economic  Valuation  of 
Vision,  furnish  a  medium  or  working  basis  for  a  more  uniform 
arrangement  of  rates  in  such  class  of  cases. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  805 

Accepting  their  maximum  and  minimum  limits,  respectively, 
of  the  range  of  visual  acuity  necessary  as  a  condition  of  success 
in  the  performance  of  manual  labor,  namely,  0.50  (one-half)  to 
0.05  (one-twentieth)  of  the  full  scientific  standard,  as  being  both 
practical  and  approximately  correct,  though  not  controlling,  it 
is  quite  evident  that  a  visual  acuity  that  is  limited  to  one-tenth 
of  normal  and  exists  in  but  one  eye  (the  conditions  shown  in 
this  case)  is  a  very  low  grade  of  vision. 

Held :  That  the  degreee  of  disability  resulting  from  the  amount 
of  damage  to  the  visual  acuity  of  the  appellant  in  this  case  is 
fully  equivalent  to  the  loss  of  a  hand  or  foot  for  purposes  of 
manual  labor,  and  warrants  the  allowance  of  the  third-grade 
rate  (the  rate  allowed  iji  the  case  cited  above  for  an  equivalent 
though  not  identical  cause  of  disability). 

4.  Paralysis. 

Increase — Pathological  sequence — Paralysis — Disability.  ( Thomas 
C.  Johnson,  12  P.  D.,  59). 

The  basic  principle  upon  which  claims  for  straight  increase 
under  the  general  law^  are  adjudicated  involves  primarily  the 
question  as  to  whether  or  not  the  degree  of  disability  due  to  pen- 
sioned cause  or  causes  per  se  has  increased  to  such  an  extent  as 
to  warrant  the  allowance  of  a  higher  rate  of  pension,  and  sec- 
ondly, the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  some  sequence  has  arisen 
which  increases  the  degree  of  disability,  and  consequently  war- 
rants an  increase  in  rate. 

In  the  case  at  bar  the  essential  feature  of  this  principle  appears 
to  have  been  ignored  in  the  adjudication  of  the  pensioner's  claims 
for  increase  filed  April  16,  1896,  and  June  12,  1897,  respectively, 
each  of  which  w^as  rejected  principally  upon  the  ground  that  the 
paralysis  of  his  left  side  could  not  be  accepted  as  a  result  of  the 
disease  of  spine  for  which  he  is  pensioned. 

In  the  judgment  of  the  Department  the  refusal  on  the  part  of 
the  Bureau  to  accept  the  paralysis  of  the  claimant's  left  side  as 
a  result  of  the  disease  of  spine  for  which  he  is  pensioned  was 
justified  by  the  history  of  the  case  furnished  by  the  claimant 
himself;  but  it  is  held  that  the  refusal  to  allow  an  increase  in 
rate  fro'n  third  to  second  grade  for  disease  of  spine  alone,  under 
each  and  both  of  said  claims,  was  error,  as  it  was  clearly  shown  at 
the  medical  examinations  made  pursuant  to  such  claims  that  he 
was  unable  to  perform  any  manual  labor  by  reason  of  said  pen- 
sioned cause. 

All  adverse  actions  in  the  said  claims,  both  of  the  Department 
and  the  Bureau,  are  rescinded  and  set  aside. 

1307( 


306  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

5.  Act  of  March  4,  1890,  and  July  14,  1892. 

Increase  —  Rerating  —  Insane  persons  —  Rate  —  Commencement. 
(Patrick  Mallon,  deceased,  13  P.  D.,  290.) 

The  objective  conditions  manifested  at  the  medical  examination 
made  of  the  soklier  November  30,  1900,  pursuant  to  his  claim  for 
increase  filed  June  14,  1900,  when  he  was  pensioned  at  the  second- 
grade  rate  for  "  chronic  diarrhea,  and  disease  of  mind  and  ner- 
vous system,  result  of  sunstroke,"  were  such — when  considered  in 
connection  with  the  collateral  facts  adduced  in  the  case — as  war- 
ranted the  allowance  of  the  $50  rate  from  the  date  of  said  exami- 
nation. 

Under  authority  vested  in  her  by  the  rule  laid  down  in  the  case 
of  Joel  Ames,  insane  (8  P.  I).,  171),  and  in  several  other  cases, 
his  wife,  as  next  friend,  filed  a  claim  for  the  rerating  of  his 
invalid  claim  from  the  date  of  its  original  allowance,  contending 
that  he  was  entitled  to  either  the  $50  rate  or  the  $72  rate  from 
said  date.  This  contention  is  untenable,  as  by  the  express  terms 
of  the  acts  of  March  4,  1890,  and  July  14,  1892,  respectively,  the 
rate  provided  by  the  former  act  can  only  be  allowed  in  such  cases 
as  the  one  at  bar  from  the  date  of  the  certificate  of  an  examining 
surgeon  or  board  of  surgeons,  showing  title  to  such  rate,  and  the 
allowance  of  the  rate  prescribed  in  the  latter  act  is  prohibited 
from  any  date  prior  to  the  date  of  such  certificate.  Title  to  the 
$72  rate  was  not  shown;  and  inasmuch  as  the  allowance  of  the 
$50  rate  has  been  directed  in  the  soldier's  claim  for  increase  no 
other  readjustment  of  rates  is  warranted. 

Increase — Restoration — Res  judicata — Practice.  (Jones  A.  Hen- 
derson, 13  P.  D.,  455.) 

The  appellant  is  now,  and  has  been  since  March  3,  1883,  pen- 
sioned at  the  rate  of  $30  per  month  (second  grade)  for  "  disease 
of  heart  and  injury  of  left  knee."  In  1889,  pursuant  to  certain 
facts  brought  to  light  by  the  evidence  adduced  at  a  special  exami- 
nation held  in  the  premises,  his  name  was  dropped  from  the  rolls, 
*  but  it  was  promptly  restored  thereto  by  direction  of  the  First' 
Deputy  Commissioner  of  Pensions,  upon  a  review  of  the  same 
evidence  and  upon  the  same  set  of  facts  that  caused  the  said 
action  of  dropping.  While  the  action  of  restoration  does  not 
clear  the  case  from  the  cloud  resting  upon  it,  the  appellant  is, 
nevertheless,  under  the  rule  laid  down  in  the  case  of  William 
Wilson  (10  P.  D.,  232),  entitled  to  whatever  increase  in  rate  the 
degree  of  disability  due  to  pensioned  causes  may  warrant,  so  long 
as  his  name  is  permitted  to  remain  upon  the  rolls. 

In  the  judgment  of  the  Department,  the  personal  aid  and 
attendance  of  another  person  shown  to  be  required  in  this  case 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  307 

by  reason  of  said  causes,  brings  the  case  within  the  purview  of 
the  provisions  of  the  act  of  July  14,  1892,  and  consequently 
warrants  the  allowance  of  the  $50  rate  from  the  date  of  the  cer- 
tificate of  the  medical  examination  held  pursuant  to  the  claim  for 
increase,  from  the  rejection  of  which  the  appeal  was  taken. 

6.  Act  of  March  19,  1886. 

Increase — Act  of  March  19^  1886 — Widows.     (Mary  C.  Herbert, 
widow,  U  P.  D.,  95.)  . 

The  claimant  not  having  married  the  sailor  prior  to  the  passage 
of  the  act  of  March  19,  1880,  or  prior  to  or  during  the  service  in 
which  the  disability  causing  death  was  contracted,  she  has  no 
title  to  the  $12  per  month  provided  for  therein. 

7.  Act  of  January  5,  1893. 

Increase — Act  of  January  29^  1887 — Arrears.     (Garry  W.  Lynch, 
U  P.  D.,  155.) 

When  a  pensioner  under  the  act  of  January  29,  1887,  was 
allowed  increase,  under  the  act  of  January  5,  1893,  from  a  date 
which  was  subsequently  decided  by  the  Department  to  have  been 
erroneous  in  law,  and  he,  pursuant  to  such  decision,  applies  for 
arrears  of  increase  from  the  proper  date,  as  so  decided  by  the 
Department,  which  was  prior  to  that  from  which  he  was  allowed 
such  increase,  and  shows  the  existence,  at  the  former  date,  of  the 
same  conditions  in  fact  as  to  title  to  increase  as  existed  at  the 
latter  date,  such  arrears  should  be  allowed,  notwithstanding  such 
conditions  do  not,  in  the  opinion  of  the  present  adjudicating  oiR- 
cer,  establish  such  title,  the  question  being  one  of  judgment, 
merely,  on  the  evidence. 

Increase — Act  January  J,   1893 — GTay\s   hattaliori.       (Jasper   N. 
Armstrong,  14  P.  D.,  285.) 

As  claimant  Avas  not  lawfully  on  the  rolls  at  the  time  the  act 
of  January  5,  1893,  was  passed,  he  was  not  entitled  to  increase 
under  its  provisions. 

8.  Practice. 

Increase — Desertion — Res  judicata.     (William  Wilson,   10  P.  D., 
232.) 

Pensioner  is  in  receipt  of  pension  at  $17  per  month,  for  rheu- 
matism and  resulting  disease  of  heart.  This  pension  was 
granted  when  the  rules  of  practice  recognized  his  service  as 
legal.  Since  then  a  change  in  said  rules  and  in  the  construction 
of  the  law  would  not  permit  the  allowance  of  said  pension  de 
710 vo.  because  the  service  is  considered  as  nonpensionable.  But, 
under  the  "  general  instructions  ''  in  regard  to  practice  in  the 


308  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Bureau,  it  is  provided  that  the  pension  as  granted  shall  not  be 
disturbed  as  to  title,  but  no  additional  pension,  either  as  increase 
or  for  new  disability,  may  be  allowed.  •  Hence  this  claim  for 
increase  of  rating  was  rejected.     It  is 

Held:  That  while  the  "general  instructions''  are  proper  and 
sustained  by  former  decisions  as  regards  original  title,  yet  as 
long  as  his  name  is  kept  on  the  rolls  he  is  entitled  to  increase  of 
rating  upon  a  proper  show^ing  of  increase  of  the  disability  for 
which  pensioned.     The  rejection  is  accordingly  overruled. 

9.  Act  of  August  4,  1886. 

Specific  disability — Increase.     (Gibhart  Kurtz,  9  P.  D.,  204.) 

Soldier  is  pensioned  at  the  rate  of  $80  per  month  on  account 
of  the  loss  of  a  forearm.  Upon  an  application  for  increase  the 
evidence  shows  that  soldier's  arm  was  amputated  at  the  elbow, 
and  he  is  entitled  to  increase  under  the  act  of  August  4,  1886. 

10.  Third  Grade. 

Increase  —  Third    grade  —  Evidence  —  Disability.        (Calvin    A. 
Hutchinson,  11  P.  D.,  51.) 

The  objective  conditions — due  to  rheumatism  and  disease  of 
heart,  and  the  sequelae  thereof — described  in  the  certificate  of  the 
medical  examination  held  August  *2,  1899,  in  pursuance  of  the 
claim  for  increase  filed  January  28,  1899,  show^ — in  the  judgment 
of  the  Department — the  existence  at  that  time  of  a  degree  of 
disability  fully  equivalent  to  the  loss  of  a  hand  or  foot,  for  pur- 
poses of  manual  labor ;  and  it  is,  therefore. 

Held:  That  the  allowance  of  the  third-grade  rate  from  the 
date  of  the  certificate  of  the  said  medical  examination  was,  and 
is,  fully  warranted. 

INDIANS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  8  (13  P.  D.,  308:  15  P.  D.,  283). 

INDIAN  WARS. 

See  Service  :  No.  3  (9  P.  D.,  143,  178,  206 ;  10  P.  D.,  26 ;  11  P.  D.,  177 ; 
14  P.  D.,  13,  296,  298,  408 ;  15  P.  D.,  23,  44,  51,  124,  130,  201,  375. 
394,396). 

INDIAN  DIVORCES. 

See  Divorce:  No.  8  (12  P.  D.,  474). 

INDIANA  LAWS. 

See  Decree  of  Nullity:  No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  271). 

See  Divorce:  No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  226)  :  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  236)  ;  No.  5  (15 
P.  D.,  278)  ;  No.  10  (15  P.  D.,  389). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  309 

See  Division  of  Pensions  :  No.  12  (13  P.  D.,  218). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (1)    (13  P.  D.,  333;  15  P.  D.,  229)  ;  Nos.  4,  5  (9 

P.  D.,  5;  10  P.  D.,  258). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  9,  11,  15  P.  D. 

INFANTS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (bb)    (10  P.  D.,  389).      . 

INSANE  OR  HELPLESS  MINOR. 

See  Helpless  Minor. 


INSANITY. 


See  Death  Cause:  No.  9   (12  P.  D.,  459). 

See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  4  (14  P.  D.,  191)  ;  No.  13  (15  P.  D.,- 

450). 
See  Helpless  Minor:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  35.3,  452)  ;  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  22, 

224,  368;   12  P.  D.,  36.5,  527). 
See  Insane  Persons  ;  Nos.  1,  2  (10  P.  D.,  109;  15  P.  D.,  270). 
See  Marriage:  No.  9  (10  P.  D.,  192;  15  P.  D..  .308). 
See  Pathological  Sequence  :  Nos.  10,  18  (13  P.  D.,  105 ;  14  P.  D.,  89). 
See  Reduction  :  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  244). 

INSANE  PERSONS. 

See  Attorneys:  No.  5  (9  P.  D.,  19). 

See  Dependent  Widow  :  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  40). 

See  Increase:  No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  290). 

Index. 

1.  The  wife,  as  insane  husband's  agent. 

2.  Payment  of  pension. 

3.  To  whom  pension  should  be  paid. 

1.  The  Wife,  as  Insane  Husband's  Agent. 

Insane  persons  —  Declarations  —  Pending  claim.  (Benjamin  R. 
Mays,  insane,  10  P.  D.,  109.) 

Application  on  behalf  of  an  insane  sailor  without  guardian 
made  by  his  wife  accepted  as  sufficient  to  constitute  a  "  claim 
pending  "  at  the  date  of  his  death. 

2.  Payment  of  Pension. 

Accrued  pension — Payment  of  pension — Insane  pensioner — Mar- 
riage— Dependency  under  act  of  August  S,  1882.  (Louise  Wil- 
bur, widow,  15  P.  D.,  270.) 

Pensioner  married  one  Eliza  M.  while  he  was  insane  and  while 
he  had  a  wife,  Louise,  living,  from  whom  he  was  never  divorced. 
The  pension  accruing  to  said  pensioner  while  he  was  insane  (hav- 
ing no  guardian)  was  paid  to  said  Eliza  M.  under  the  act  of 
August  8,  1882. 


310  PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Held:  1.  That  said  payments  to  Eliza  M.  were  unlawful  for 
the  reason  that  she  was  not  his  wife,  having  married  soldier  while 
he  was  insane,  said  marriage  never  having  been  ratified  by  him 
during  his  sanity,  arid  for  the  further  reason  that  at  the  time  of 
soldier's  pretended  marriage  to  her,  and  at  the  time  said  pay- 
ments were  made,  soldier  had  a  wife  living  from  .wdiom  he  was 
never  divorced. 

2.  Said  accrued  pension  may  not  be  paid  to  the  wife  Louise; 
that  she  has  not  been  shown  to  have  been,  in  fact,  dependent  upon 
said  soldier. 

3.  The  dependency  mentioned  in  said  act  of  August  8,  1882, 
and  the  act  of  August  7,  1882,  is  dependency  in  fact  and  not  a 
technical  legal  dependency. 

3.  To  Whom  Pension  should  be  Paid. 

Payment  of  pension — Insane  pensioner — Government  Hospital  for 
the  Insane — Acts  of  August  7  and  August  8,  1882.  (Franz  J. 
Disaga,  15  P.  D.,  430.) 

The  act  of  August  7,  1882,  specifically  directs  that  the  pension 
money  of  an  insane  invalid  pensioner  who  has  been  transferred 
from  the  National  Home  for  Disabled  Volunteer  Soldiers  to  the 
Government  Hospital  for  the  Insane  in  Washington,  D.  C,  be 
paid  to  the  proper  officer  of  the  Government  Hospital  for  the 
Insane. 

The  act  of  August  7,  1882,  is  in  no  wise  amended  or  repealed 
by  the  act  of  August  8,  1882. 

INTENT. 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  No.  4  (14  P.  D.,  191). 

INSTRUCTIONS. 

See  Declarations  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  93). 

See  Minors  :  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  465). 

See  Rate  and  Rating  :  No.  11  (9  P.  D.,  125). 

INFLAMMATION  OF  THE  BLADDER,  AND  HERNIA. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  9  (13  P.  D.,  184). 

INJURY  TO  BACK. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  1  (15  P.  D.,  150). 

INTERLOCUTORY  ORDER. 

See  Divorce:  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  499;  15  P.  D.,  278). 
See  Practice:  No.  24  (14  P.  D.,  3(M). 


I 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  311 

INTERLOCUTORY  DECREE. 

See  Divorce:  No.  5  (11  P.  I).,  499;  15  P.  D.,  278). 

IOWA  LAWS. 

See  1>ivorce:  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  174). 

See  Marriage:  Nos.  2  (m),  2  (a)  (10  P.  D.,  118,  12.S;  11  P.  D.,  74). 

See  Tari.es  of  State  Statutes  for  10  aDd  11  P.  D. 

JUDGES'  MINUTES. 

See  Divorce:  No.  10  (15  P.  D..  .380). 

JOINT  RESOLUTION  OF  JULY  1,  1902. 

See  Accrued  Pensions:  Nos.  5,  10,  11  (11  P.  D.,  241;  14  P.  D..  104, 
422). 

See  Desertion:  No.  4  (a)  (12  P.  D.,  450;  15  P.  D.,  63)  ;  No.  4  (b) 
(14  P.  D.,  375,  .380,  4(\{y:  15  P.  D.,  110,  525)  ;  No.  4  (c)  (13  P.  D.^ 
.340;  14  P.  D.,  .552)  ;  No.  4  (d)  (15  P.  D.,  215)  ;  No.  4  (e)  (15  P.  D., 
94)  ;  No.  4  (f)  (14  P.  D.,  3.52,  ,502;  15  P.  D.,  4.37)  ;  No.  4  (g)  15 
P.  D..  8)  ;  No.  7  (15  P.  D.,  270). 

See  Disix)yalty:  Nos.  1,  8,  9,  10,  11  (13  P.  D.,  128,  248,  2.59,  .349,  .395; 
14  P.  D.,  104,  422 ;  15  P.  D.,  70,  .3.37,  309). 

See  Fee:  No.  23  (14  P.  D.,  270). 

(a)  Confederates. 

See  Accrued  Pensions:  Nos.  5,  10,  11   (11  P.  D.,  241;  14  P.  D.,  104, 

422). 
See  Disloyalty  :  Nos.  1,  8,  9,  10,  11  (13  P.  D.,  128,  248,  259,  .349,  395; 

14  P.  D.,  104,  422 ;  15  P.  D.,  76,  337,  369. 
See  Fee  :  No.  23  (14  P.  D.,  276). 

(b)  Union  Deserters. 

See  Desertion:  No.  4  (a)  (12  P.  D.,  450;  15  P.  D.,  03)  ;  No.  4  (b) 
(14  P.  D.,  375,  380,  4(i6;  15  P.  D.,  116,  525)  ;  No.  4  (c)  (13  P.  D., 
.346;  14  P.  D.,  552)  ;  No.  4  (d)  (15  P.  D.,  215)  ;  No.  4  (e)  (15  P.  D., 
94)  ;  No.  4  (f)  (14  P.  D.,  .352,  502;  15  P.  D.,  437)  ;  No.  4  (g)  (15 
P.  D.,  8).;  No.  7  (15  P.  D.,  270). 

JURISDICTION. 

References. 

See  Accrued  Pension:  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  .3.51). 

See  Decree  of  Nullity:  Nos.  3.  4,  7  (11  P.  D.,  271;    13  P.  D.,  460; 

15  P.  D.,  286)  ;  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  470). 

See  Declarations:  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  210)  ;  No.  6  (11  P.  D.,  2.57,  420). 
See  Divorce:  Nos.  3,  4,  7,  10  (10  P.  D.,  434;    11  P.  D.,  220.  406;    13 

P.  D.,  208,  2.36;    14  P.  D.,  173,  279). 
See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  494)  ;  No.  9   (12  P.  D., 

263,  ,336) ;  No.  15  (14  P.  D.,  2,30). 
See  Fee:  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  109). 
See  Guardian  :  Nos.  1,  3  (9  P.  D.,  55 ;   15  P.  D.,  364). 


312  PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  11  (15  P.  D.,  459)  ;  No.  15  (15  P.  D.,  503). 
See  Practice:  No.  27  (13  P.  D.,  465). 
See  Service:  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  87). 

Index. 

1.  Of  Commissioner  oyer  medical  examinations. 

2.  Guardianship. 

3.  Practice. 

4.  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 

5.  Secretary  of  War. 

1.  Of  Commissioner  Over  Medical  Examinations. 

Jurisdiction — Medical  examinations — Experts — Act  Jvly  25^  1882. 
(Samuel  S.  Bowman,  11  P.  D.,  348.) 

The  third  subdivision  of  section  4  of  the  act  of  July  25,  1882, 
confers  discretion  on  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions,  in  the 
exercise  of  which  he  may  order  a  claimant  to  be  examined  by  an 
expert  without  an  examination  before  a  full  board  of  examining 
surgeons. 

2.  Guardianship. 

Jurisdiction — Guardianship — Pension      fund — Accrued      pension. 
(Guardian  of  George  J.  Brick,  insane,  12  P.  D.,  147.) 

The  Commissioner  of  Pensions  is  without  authority,  in  the 
absence  of  legislation  by  Congress  giving  him  power  so  to  do,  to 
suspend  the  quarterly  payments  of  pension  to  the  duly  appointed 
and  qualified  guardian  or  committee  of  an  insane  pensioner 
.  solely  upon  the  ground  that  funds  have  accumulated  in  the  hands 
of  such  guardian  or  committee  in  excess  of  the  needs  of  the 
insane  pensioner,  and  when  there  is  no  charge  or  proof  of  any 
maladministration,  embezzlement,  or  unlawful  conversion  to  his 
own  use  by  such  guardian  or  committee  of  the  pension  money 
in  his  hands  belonging  to  his  ward; 

The  decision  of  this  Department  of  May  22,  1901  (11  P.  D., 
351),  is  hereby  modified  and  overruled. 

3.  Practice. 

Record.,  amendment  of  same — Jurisdiction.     (George  W.   Drake, 
9  P.  D.,  273.) 

The  official  records  of  the  War  and  Treasury  Departments 
fail  to  show  that  this  appellant  w^as  in  the  military  service  of  the 
United  States  at  any  time  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  and 
all  testimony  offered  to  controvert  the  record  should  be  filed  in 
the  War  Department,  as  the  Bureau  and  this  Department  are 
bound  by  such  record. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  313 

Secretary  of  the  Interior. 
Reduction — Aid  and  attendance — Practice — Fraud — Jurisdiction — 

Res    judicata — Medical    referee — Record.     (William    Blaisdell, 

deceased,  13  P.  D.,  465.) 

1.  There  is  no  statute  inhibiting  one  administration  from  re- 
viewing the  action  of  a  past  administration,  and  the  Department 
may  not  make  any  such  inhibition. 

2.  The  Department  may,  however,  in  the  interests  of  good 
administration  and  on  grounds  of  public  policy,  properly  and 
lawfully  refuse  such  review  except  on  error  or  gross  injustice 
appearing  on  the  face  of  the  record  or  clearly  demonstrated  in 
a  motion  for  reconsideration. 

3.  Failure  by  the  Department  to  entertain  as  a  motion  for 
reconsideration  a  guardian's  letter  setting  forth  facts  sufficient 
under  the  rules  to  constitute  a  valid  motion  for  reconsideration 
of  a  decision  adverse  to  such  guardian's  ward  is  such  error  as 
will  be  corrected,  after  the  ward's  death,  on  motion  regularly 
made  by  one  entitled  to  claim  the  latter's  accrued  pension. 

4.  In  exercising  such  powder  of  review  one  administration  may 
not  disturb  the  action  of  a  past  administration  so  as  to  affect 
pension  already  paid  thereunder,  unless  fraud  or  mistake  of 
fact  be  shown;  but  an  erroneous  judgment  on  the  evidence  may 
be  corrected  by  any  succeeding  administration,  so  far  as  regards 
future  pension. 

5.  The  ^Commissioner  of  Pensions  hae,  with  the  consent  and 
under  the  supervision  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  full 
power  at  any  time  to  increase  or  to  reduce  a  pension  according 
to  right  and  justice,  subject  only  to  certain  provisions  as  to 
notice  and  hearing,  and  it  is  his  duty  to  reduce  or  to  w^ithdraw 
pension  when  it  is  shown  to  be  contrary  to  a  clear  and  unam- 
biguous law  as  to  which  no  misconstruction  is  possible. 

6.  The  opinion  of  the  medical  referee,  while  generally  accepted 
on  purely  medical  questions,  is  not  conclusive,  but  is  advisory 
only,  and  on  questions  of  mental  capacity  and  of  facts  lying 
within  the  range  of  common  observation  and  experience  his 
opinion,  and  medical  testimony  generally,  is  not  entitled  to  any 
greater  weight  because  of  the  fact  of  his  or  the  witness  being  a 
physician,  but  such  questions  should  be  decided  upon  all  the 
evidence  in  the  case. 

7.  The  question  of  title  to  the  first-grade  rate  is  one  of  mixed 
law^  and  fact,  to  be  decided  from  all  the  laws  in  pari  materia  on 
the  one  hand  and  from  all  the  evidence  on  the  other. 

8.  Insanity  does  not  of  itself  necessarily  entitle  to  either  the 
first  grade  or  the  intermediate  rate,  but  it  must  be  shown  that 


314  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

the  disability  or  disabilities  established  as  originating  in  line 
of  duty  in  service  totally  incapacitate  the  soldier  for  manual 
labor,  and  also  necessitate  the  regular  or  the  frequent  and  peri- 
odical personal  aid  and  attendance  of  another. 

9.  The  public  record  as  to  the  cause  of  death  is  not  conclusive, 
but  the  question  of  death  cause  is  one  of  fact  to  be  decided  ui)ou 
all  the  evidence,  and  the  medical  referee's  conclusion  as  to  such 
cause  is  generally  followed  by  the  Department  when  based  upon 
all  the  evidence  and  upon  facts  appearing  therein  reasonably  and 
fairly  warranting  it. 

10.  The  evidence  herein  shows  that  the  allowance  of  pension 
at  the  first-grade  rate  in  January,  1891,  was  erroneous  and  ille- 
gal, as  it  included  disabilities  which  had  not  been  established 
as  of  service  origin,  and  as  neither  total  incapacity  for  manual 
labor  nor  regular  personal  aid  and  attendance  of  another  per- 
son, within  the  meaning  of  the  law  as  construed  by  the  De- 
partment, existed  by  reason  of  the  only  cause,  sciatic  rheumatism, 
shown  to  have  originated  in  line  of  duty  in  service,  and  that  the 
rate  was  properly  reduced  to  $10  per  month  from  July  4,  1893, 
neither  such  incapacity  for  labor  nor  such  need  of  aid  and  at- 
tendance having  existed  since  that  date  from  said  cause. 

11.  The  soldier's  mental  disease  or  infirmity  is  show^n  to  have 
had  no  probable  or  possible  pathological  connection  with  said 
disease  on  account  of  which  he  was  properly  pensionable,  sciatic 
rheumatism,  nor  any  connection  otherwise  with  his  military 
service,  but  is  shown  to  have  been  probably  due  to  other  and 
nonservice  causes. 

12.  A  bare  preponderance  of  testimony  is  not  sufficient  to  es- 
tablish fraud,  but  there  must  be  such  clear  and  ample  preponder- 
ance as  to  satisfy  the  mind  and  conscience  of  the  fact  of  fraud. 

13.  It  is  error  to  omit,  on  special  examination  of  a  claim,  to 
cross-examine  procurable  w^itnesses  whose  affidavits  prima  facie 
establish  such  claim. 

5.  Secretary  of  War. 

Jurisdietion  —  Secretary  of  War  —  Officer  —  Service  —  Veterinavji 
Surgeon — Appointment.     (Margaret  J.  Treacy,  13  P.  D.,  416). 

1.  The  Secretary  of  War  has  the  pow  er  and  authority  under  tlu^ 
Constitution,  as  interpreted  by  the  Supreme  Court,  under  regu- 
lations of  the  War  Department  approved  by  the  President,  to 
appoint  an  officer  to  fill  an  office  created  by  act  of  Congress, 
when  the  appointment  is  not  otherwise  provided  for. 

2.  A  veterinary  surgeon  is  not  a  civil  employee,  but  an  officer 
within  the  meaning  of  paragraph  1,  section  4693,  Revised  Stat 
utes  of  the  United  States. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  315 

FDGMENT. 

See  Divorce:    No.  5  (15  P.  D.,  278)  ;    No.  10  (15  P.  D.,  389). 

KENTUCKY  LAWS. 

See  Legitimacy:  Nos.  4,  7  (15  P.  D.,  .S8G ;    14  ^.  D..  474). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (o)    (12  P.  D.,  4.30,  407;    1.3  P.  D.,  (>4)  ;    No.  12 

(12  P.  D.,  202)  ;    No.  15  (10  P.  D.,  1,57,  441;    12  P.  D.,  150,  447). 
See  also  10  P.  D.,  1.58,  442 ;  12  P.  D..  440,  102 ;    13  P.  D.,  05. 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  10,  12,  13,  and  14  P.  D. 

KANSAS  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (n)   (11  P.  D.,  07)  ;   No.  2  (y)    (15  P.  D.,  211). 

LAY  TESTIMONY. 

See  Death  Cause:    No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  453). 

LEGAL  REPRESENTATIVES. 

See  Bounty  Land:    No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  .501). 

LEGITIMACY. 

References. 

See  Marriage  :  No.  2  (y),  2  (rr)  (15  P.  D.,  211 ;  10  P.  D..  227)  ;  No.  4 
(9  P.  D.,  78)  ;  No.  8  (13  P.  D„  308)  ;  No.  15  (10  P.  D.,  75)  ;  No. 
2  (b)(15  P.  D.,488). 

Index. 

1.  Minors,  laws  of  New  York. 

2.  Laws  of  Maryland. 

3.  Laws  of  Tennessee. 

4.  Parents  must  be  legally  married. 

5.  Evidence. 

0.  In  state  of  Missouri. 

7.  Kentucky  laws. 

8.  Ohio  laws. 

1.  Minors,  Laws  of  New  York. 

Legitimacy — Marriage.     (Katie  Smith,  minor,  9  P.  D.,  199.) 

It  appearing  that  the  marriage  of  the  parents  of  this  minor 
was  "  absokitely  void  ''  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
where  all  the  parties  resided  both  before  and  after  said  marriage, 
she  was  not  a  legitimate  child  of  said  deceased  sailor  and  has 
no  title  to  pension  as  a  minor  under  the  ^^rovisions  of  the  pension 
laws. 

2.  Laws  of  Maryland. 

Marriage  of  slaves  in  Maryland— Legitimacy.     (Samuel   Tuttle, 
father,  11  P.  D.,  278.) 

Under  the  laws  of  Maryland  slaves  might  legally  marry  and 
the  issue  of  their  marriages  was  legitimate. 


316  PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

3.  Laws  of  Tennessee. 

Marriage — Legitimacy — Slaves — Laws  of  7'ennessee.  (Heuben 
Burton,  father,  11  P.  D.,  294.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case  shows  that  this  appellant  married 
the  mother  of  the  deceased  soldier  in  the  State  of  Tennessee  in 
1844  according  to  the  custom  of  slaves ;  that  the  deceased  soldier 
was  born  of  said  marriage  in  1845,  and  was  always  known  and 
acknowledged  as  the  son  of  the  appellant;  that  the  appellant 
and  the  mother  of  soldier  lived  and  cohabited  together  as  hus- 
band and  wife  and  were  universallv  so  known  and  recoo^nized 
from  the  date  of  their  slave  marriage  until  the  death  of  the  latter 
in  1872;  that  they  were  so  living  together  in  the  State  of  Ten- 
nessee on  May  26,  1866,  the  date  of  the  act  of  said  State  making 
said  marriage  legal  and  valid  for  all  purposes  and  legitimizing 
all  the  issue  of  such  marriage.  There  is  no  competent  or  suffi- 
cient evidence  in  this  case  indicating  that  the  appellant  was  not 
the  father  of  the  deceased  soldier,  and  he  should  be  accepted  as 
such  for  pensionable  purposes. 

4.  Parents  Must  Be  Legally  Married. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Legitimacy — Minors.  (Alleged  minors  of 
William  Hartley,  11  P.  D.,  40.) 

1.  A  minor  child  to  be  pensionable  must  be  the  child  of  a 
woman  to  whom  the  soldier,  its  father,  was  legally  married,  not- 
withstanding that  soldier  solemnly  declared  and  recognized  it  to 
be  his  legitimate  child. 

2.  It  appearing  that  the  deceased  soldier  had  been  lawfully 
married  prior  to  his  marriage  to  the  mother  of  the  above-named 
minor  children,  that  said  marriage  was  never  dissolved  by 
divorce,  and  that  said  first  wife  survived  him  and  is  at  present 
in  receipt  of  a  pension  as  his  widow,  and  that  the  mother  of  said 
minor  children  also  survived  the  soldier  and  is  now  living,  said 
minors  have  no  title  whatever  to  pension  as  minor  children  of 
the  deceased  soldier  under  the  provisions  of  the  pension  laws. 
(See  case  of  alleged  minors  of  Jonas  W.  Pulver,  10  P.  D.,  227.) 

Legitimacy — Marriage — Colored  soldiers — Evidence — Section  470^^ 
of  the  Revised  Statutes — Act  of  August  7,  1882.  (Minor  of 
James  Cofield,  alias  William  Scofield,  15  P.  D.,  386.) 

A  claimant  under  the  Revised  Statutes  as  minor  child  of  a  col- 
ored soldier  may  establish  his  legitimacy  under  either  the  act 
of  August  7,  1882,  as  to  marriage,  or  section  4705  of  the  Revised 
Statutes,  and  must  establish  legitimacy  by  showing  either  a  valid 
marriage  under  the  lex  matrimonii  of  his  parents'  domicile  or 
the  de  facto  marital  conditions  })rescribed  in  said  section  4705. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  317 

Distinguishing,  as  to  proof  of  legitimacy,  claims  by  dependent 
parents. 

5.  Evidence — Law  of  Arkansas. 

Legitimacy — Evidence — Proof  of  death.  (Cora  B.,  minor  of 
Thomas  J.  Fox,  12  P.  D.,  102.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  the  mother  of  this  claimant  married 
one  Little  in  1877,  in  Pike  County,  Ark.,  and  in  the  same  year 
removed  to  Hempstead  County,  in  the  same  State;  that  said 
mother  returned  to  her  relatives  and  friends  in  Pike  County  in 
1870  and  reported  that  said  husband  was  dead,  bringing  an 
infant  son  by  said  marriage  with  her;  that  in  1883  she  married 
claimant's  father,  Thomas  J.  Fox  (now  deceased),  who  survived 
her;  that  it  was  understood  and  believed  by  her  relatives,  friends, 
find  neighbors  that  said  former  husband  died  in  1879,  said  son 
by  said  former  husband  testifying  also  that  he  resided  w^ith  his 
mother  until  her  death,  in  1885,  and  was  always  told  that  his 
father  died  Avhile  he  was  a  small  child.     It  is 

Held:  In  harmony  with  the  cases  of  Kelly's  heirs  v.  McGuire 
et  al.  (15  Ark.,  605),  and  Wilson  v.  Brownlee  (24  Ark.,  586), 
that  declarations  by  members  and  relatives  of  the  family,  or 
general  repute  in  the  family,  are  good  evidence  to  establish 
death,  heirship,  and  the  like,  though  disconnected  with  any  ques- 
tion of  pedigree;  and  in  this  case  satisfactorily  establishes  that 
claimant's  mother's  first  husband  died  prior  to  her  marriage  to 
her  father.  Fox,  and  that  said  marriage  was  legal,  and  she  is 
the  legitimate  daughter  of  said  soldier. 

6.  In  State  of  Missouri. 

Legitimacy — Marriage — Void  marriage — Missoifri  laws,  (Minors 
of  Harvey  Perkins,  13  P.  D.,  414.) 

In  the  State  of  Missouri  children  born  of  an  illegal  marriage 
can  inherit  and  transmit  by  descent  the  same  as  if  born  of  lawful 
marriage,  and  it  is  held  that  the  minors  in  this  case  are  legitimate 
for  pensionable  purpose^ 

7.  Kentucky  Laws. 

Legitimacy — Marriage — Kentucky  laws — Slaves — Act  of  August  7, 
1882 — Dependent  father.  (Patrick  Chambers,  father,  14  P.  D., 
474.) 

The  claimant  and  the  mother  of  the  soldier  contracted  a  valid 
slave  marriage,  but  never  ratified  the  same  under  the  laws  of 
Kentucky,  the  State  in  which  they  resided. 

Held:  The  laws  of  the  State  of  Kentucky  made  the  children 
of  this  slave  marriage  legitimate ;  and  inasmuch  as  this  claiming 


318  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

father  could  inherit  from  soldier,  his  legal  status  as  a  father  is 
established. 

It  is  the  lex  loci  which  governs  in  such  a  case  as  the  present 
one,  wholly  apart  from  the  act  of  August  7,  1882,  which  has  no 
bearing  upon  the  issue  herein  involved. 

Opinion  in  the  case  of  Gus  Johnson  (8  P.  D.,  463)  is  herebv 
modified. 
8.  Ohio  Laws. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Legitimacy — Ohio  laws.     (Minor  of  Ed- 
ward Plount,  13  P.  D.,  541.) 

A  child  who  is  the  issue  of  a  de  facto  marriage  is,  in  the  State 
o2  Ohio,  legitimate,  and  must  be  held  to  be  legitimate  under  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890.  (See  minors  of  Harvey  Perkins,  13  P.  D., 
414.) 

The  opinion  in  the  case  of  minors  of  James  W.  Pulver   (10 
P.  D.,  227),  so  far  as  it  relates  to  such  issue,  is  expressly  over- 
ruled. 
Marriage — Laws  of  Ohio — Legitimacy — Evidence.     (Minor  of  Ed- 
ward Plount,  14  P.  D.,  428.) 

1.  A  common-law  marriage  may  arise  in  the  State  of  Ohio 
after  the  removal  of  an  impediment,  the  lawfulness  of  said  mar- 
riage being  based  not  upon  a  new  contract  as  a  fact  in  evidence, 
but  upon  a  presumption  that  a  new  contract  was  entered  into. 

2.  The  marital  status  in  pension  cases  must  be  determined  by 
the  law  of  the  State  in  w^hich  the  marriage  w^as  consummated  or 
according  to  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  the  claim  arises.  A 
marriage  under  a  certain  state  of  facts  being  law^ful  in  one  State, 
it  does  not  follow  that  a  marriage  in  another  State  under  an 
equivalent  state  of  facts  is  a  lawful  one.  (Act  of  xlugust  7, 
1882.) 

3.  The  legitimacy  of  a  child  for  pensionable  purposes  is  to  be 
determined  by  the  marital  status  of  its  parents  under  the  act  of 
August  7,  1882,  or  under  section  4704,  Revised  Statutes.  A  State 
statute  as  to  legitimacy  of  children  has  no  force  in  pension 
claims. 

(Tpinions  in  cases  of  minors  of  Perkins  (13  P.  D.,  414)  and  of 
Plount  (13  P.  D.,  541) ,  overruled. 

Opinion  in  case  of  minors  of  Pulver  (10  P.  D.,  227)  rein- 
stated. , 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

See  Line  of  Duty  :  No.  7  (11  P.  D.,  30 ;  12  P.  D.,  431 ;  14  I .  D.,  114). 

LENGTH  OF  SERVICE. 

See  Service:  Nos.,22,  24  (9  P.  D.,  289 ;  11  P.  D.,  200.  48.5 ;  1.3  P.  D., 
230,  237;  14  P.  D.,  257,  494;  15  P.  D.,  198,  281,  294,  340,  548). 


r 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  319 


LEX  DOMICILII. 

See  Evidence:  No.  10  (15  P.  I).,  347). 

LIGHTNING  STROKE  AND  PARALYSIS. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  12  (13  P.  D.,  1G2). 

LIMITATION. 

References. 

See  Decree  of  Nullity:  No.  (>  (15  P.  D.,  227). 

See  Dependent  Parents  :  Nos.  2,  9  (11  P.  D..  171 ;  15  P.  D.,  172,  194). 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  No,  19  (14  P.  D.,  1). 

See  Fee:  Nos.  9,  21  (10  P.  D.,  357;  13  P.  D.,  37,  39). 

See  Minor  :  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  465). 

See  Practice:  No.  6  (11  P.  D.,  95,  112). 

See  Service:  No.  3  (14  P.  D.,  13). 
Index. 

1.  Claims  of  dependent  brothers  and  sisters. 

2.  Secretary's  power. 

3.  Fee— Attorneys. 

4.  Section  4713,  Revised  Statutes. 

5.  On  widow  who  marries  soldier  after  passage  act  of  March  3,  1899. 

6.  Act  of  March  3,  1879— Minors. 

1.  Claims  of  Dependent  Brothers  and  Sisters. 

Limitation — Orphan  brothers  and  sisters.  (Lucy  Hunt,  9  P.  D., 
160.) 

The  limitation  as  to  the  date  of  commencement  of  pension  be- 
cause of  the  date  of  filing  the  claim  therefor,  contained  in  the  sec- 
ond section  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1879,  applies  to  claims  in  be- 
half of  orphan  brothers  and  sisters. 

Limitation — Dependent  brothers  and  sistei's.  (Dependent  sister 
of  William  A.  Baker,  9  P.  D.,  504.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  claimant  was  over  16  years  of  age  at 
the  time  of  filing  her  declaration,  as  well  as  at  the  date  of  depend- 
ent mother's  death,  and  she  is  not  entitled  to  pension  as  depend- 
ent sister  of  the  soldier,  as  the  exception  to  the  limitation  con- 
tained in  the  act  of  March  3,  1879,  does  not  apply  to  claims  of 
dej^endent  brothers  and  sisters  of  the  soldier. 

Limitation — Act  March  3,  1879 — Orphan  brothers  and  sisters. 
(Mary  C.  Fleming,  formerly  Bassett,  as  minor  sister,  14  P.  D., 
489.) 

The  proviso  to  the  act  of  March  3,  1879,  excepting  from  the 
limitation  therein  prescribed  as  to  date  of  filing  "  claims  by  or 
in  behalf  of  insane  persons  and  children  under  16  years  of  age  " 
does  not  apply  to  claims  of  orphan  brothers  and  sisters.     (Minor 


320  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

sisters  of  Alexander  Sutton,  8  P.  D.,  137 ;  Lucy  Hunt,  9  P.  D., 
160;  dependent  sister  of  William  A.  Baker,  ibid.,  504.) 

2.  Secretary's  Power. 

Limitation — Pending  claim — Appeal.  (William  H.  Hughes,  de- 
ceased, 9  P.  D.,  152.) 

The  power  conferred  upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to 
establish  rules  and  regulations  for  the  examination  and  adjudi- 
cation of  claims  for  pension  does  not  authorize  the  enactment  of 
a  rule  or  statute  of  limitations,  and  the  decisions  in  the  cases  of 
Jacob  AYolhart  (8  P.  D.,  226),  Henry  Groppe  (id.,  293),  and 
Briggs  Soper  (id.,  394),  in  so  far  as  they  limit  the  time  of  filing 
an  appeal  by  a  widow  from  the  rejection  of  her  husband's  pen- 
sion claim,  are  overruled  and  set  aside. 

3.  Fee — Attorneys. 

Limitation — Fee — Attorneys.  (Jacob  Paul,  claimant;  Milo  B. 
Stevens  &  Co.,  attorneys,  10  P.  D.,  421.) 

Order  No.  354  of  the  Comniissioner  of  Pensions  is  prospective 
only.  Title  to  fee  which  had  accrued  prior  to  the  promulgation 
of  said  order  can  be  proj^erly  asserted  at  any  time  within  three 
years  from  the  promulgation  of  said  order. 

4.  Section  4713,  Revised  Statutes. 

Limitation^  section  Jf713^  Revised  Statutes — Anterehellion  pensions. 
(Minor  of  Simon  Johnson,  10  P.  D.,  417.) 

The  minor's  application  in  this  case  was  filed  in  1899.  The 
person  on  account  of  whose  death  the  claim  is  filed  died  in  1815. 

Held:  That  the  claim  is  barred  by  the  provisions  of  section 
4713,  Revised  Statutes. 

5.  On  Widow  who  Marries  Soldier  After  Passage  of  Act  of  March  3,  1899. 

Limitation — Marriage — Act  March  J,  1^99 — Widows.  (Henrietta 
Briggs,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  479.) 

The  onh^  widow  w^ho  is  required  by  the  fourth  proviso  of  the 
act  of  March  3,  1899,  to  have  lived  and  cohabited  with  her  hus- 
band continuously  from  the  date  of  their  marriage  to  the  date 
of  his  death  in  order  to  establish  her  pensionable  status  is  one 
whose  marriage  occurred  on  or  subsequent  to  the  passage  of  the 
act  and  subsequent  to  his  last  military  or  naval  service,  he  not 
having  served  in  the  war  between  the  United  States  and  the 
Kingdom  of  Spain.  Claimant  having  married  soldier  June  17, 
1899,  and  lived  and  cohabited  with  him  continuously  from  the 
date  of  the  marriage  to  the  date  of  his  death,  Januai-y  3,  1900, 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  321 

the  rejection  of  her  claim  on  the  ground  that  she  married  the 
soldier  subsequent  to  the  passage  of  said  act  was  error. 

6.  Act  of  March  3,  1879— Minors. 

Lhnitatioii — Act  March  3,  1879 — Miriors.      (Minors  of  James  F. 
Burkhead,  14  P.  D.,  24.) 

1.  The  words  "  children  under  sixteen  years  of  age,"  as  used 
in  the  exception  to  the  proviso  to  section  2  of  the  act  of  March 
3,  1879,  mean  children  of  the  soldier  on  account  of  whose  service 
and  death  pension  is  claimed,  who  were  under  the  age  of  16  years 
at  the  time  of  his  death  or  at  the  date  of  the  death  or  remarriage 
of  his  widow,  and  not  to  children  who  are  under  16  years  of  age 
when  thej^  apply  for  such  pension. 

2.  Children  of  a  soldier  who  were  at  any  time  prior  to  arriv- 
ing at  the  age  of  16  years  entitled  to  pension  on  account  of  the 
service  and  death  of  their  father  from  a  cause  arising  in  the 
service  and  in  line  of  duty,  by  reason  of  the  exception  to  the 
limitation  contained  in  the  proviso  in  section  2  of  the  act  of 
March  3,  1879,  may  apply  for  and  receive  such  pension  even 
after  arriving  at  the  age  of  16  years.  (Citing  cases  of  Caroline 
Fritsche,  8  P.  D.,  o.  s.,  196;  Secretary  Teller's  instructions, 
March  3,  1885;  Thomas  W.  Baugher,  7  P.  D.,  433;  James  H. 
Hawksley,  6  L.  B.  P.,  454;  Cornelia  A.  Nyland,  3  P.  D.,  o.  s., 
256;  Eli  Phipps,  8  P.  D.,  111.)  Instructions  (10  P.  D.,  465) 
overruled. 

LINE  OF  DUTY. 

References. 

See  Age:  No.  2  (11  P.  D.,  1{«,  240,  286). 

See  Desertion  :  No.  1  (1)  P.  D.,  382)  ;  No.  3  (a)  (9  P.  D.,  416 ;  11  P.  D., 
373;  12  P.  D.,  253,  370). 

See  Disloyalty:  No.  5   (11  P.  D.,  200). 

See  Discharge:  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  82). 

See  Evidence:  No.  10  (15  P.  D.,  500). 

See  Origin:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  298). 
Index. 

1.  On  a  pass  to  hunt. 

2.  Personal  altercation. 

3.  Engaged  in  athletic  sijorts. 

4.  Poison  by  wood  alcohol. 

5.  Provost-marshal. 

6.  Undergoing  imnishment. 

7.  Absent  from  counuand. 

8.  Accidental  wound. 

0.  Killed  accidentally  by  falling  from  window. 

10.  Killed  while  hunting. 

11.  May  be  presumed,  when. 

1307( 


322  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

12.  Retired  officer. 

13.  Pass  to  visit. 

14.  In  arrest  awaiting  trial. 

15.  Evidence — origin. 

16.  Senile  cataract. 

17.  Accidental  injury. 

18.  Assisting  a  teamster. 

19.  Death  from  drinking  unboiled  water. 

1.  On  a  Pass  to  Hunt. 

Line  of  duty — Ori  a  pass  to  hunt.  (Margaret  M.  Hoffman,  widow, 
9  P.  D.,  227.) 

The  War  Department  reports  that  soldier  was  accidentally 
killed  in  line  of  duty  while  on  a  pass  to  hunt;  that  hunting  is 
encouraged  in  the  Regular  Army,  and  regarded  as  improving 
the  soldiers  as  marksmen,  and  as  much  in  the  line  of  duty  while 
on  such  pass  to  hunt  as  while  undergoing  small-arms  practice 
at  the  target  range,  and  that  a  soldier  killed  or  wounded  while 
so  engaged,  not  in  consequence  of  any  willful  neglect  or  im- 
proper conduct  on  his  part,  is  considered  in  line  of  duty. 

Held:  1.  That  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  records  of  the  War 
Department  are  usually  accepted  as  conclusive  upon  all  other 
questions  relating  to  a  soldier's  service,  the  contemporaneous 
record  made  by  the  proper  medical  officer  that  soldier  was  in 
line  of  duty  when  killed  should  be  regarded,  in  the  absence  of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  as  controlling  upon  that  question. 

2.  In  cases  where  such  record  does  not  appear,  the  question 
of  line  of  duty  must  be  determined  by  the  best  obtainable  parol 
evidence  in  each  case,  showing  the  facts  or  circumstances  under 
which  the  disability  was  incurred. 

2.  Personal  Altercation. 

Line  of  duty — Personal  altercation,  (Adolphus  Limoges,  9  P.  D., 
274.) 

Claimant  having  taken  a  pocketbook  from  a  drunken  com- 
rade while  the  latter  was  asleep,  and  having  refused  to  return  it 
upon  demand,  was  assaulted  with  a  club,  and  sustained  perma- 
nent injury  of  the  left  shoulder. 

Held:  That  the  injury  w^as  not  incurred  in  the  line  of  duty. 

Death  cause — Line  of  duty.  (Rebecca  J.  Gillcof,  widow  of  John 
Barton,  9  P.  D.,  406.) 

Soldier,  Avho  had  been  home  on  a  ten  days'  furlough  for  the 
purpose  of  voting  at  an  election,  while  waiting  at  the  wharf 
for  passage  on  a  steamer  on  w^hich  he  w^as  to  return  to  his  com- 
mand got  into  an  altercation  with  some  persons,  one  of  whom 
struck  him  on  the  head  with  a  stone,  killing  him  instantly. 


>l 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  323 

Held:  He  was  not  in  line  of  duty,  and  therefore  his  death 
was  not  due  to  the  service,  and  his  widow  is  not  pensionable 
luider  the  general  pension  laws. 

3.  Engaged  in  Athletic  Sports. 

Line  of  duty — Engaged  in  athletie  sport.'i.      (Lindley  Ruddick,  10 
P.  D.,  217.) 

It  appearing  from  the  evidence  that  the  injury  to  right  shoul- 
der, alleged  as  basis  for  additional  pension,  was  incurred  by  this 
pensioner  while  in  camp  engaged  in  athletic  sports,  and  was 
not  the  result  of  any  wrongful  or  improper  conduct  on  his  part, 
nor  in  violation  of  any  rule  or  regulation  of  the  military  service, 
nor  in  disobedience  of  orders  from  his  superior  officers,  it  was 
error  to  hold  that  it  had  not  been  received  in  line  of  duty. 
(Henry  Newman,  8  P.  D.,  532.) 

4.  Poison  by  Wood  Alcohol. 

Line  of  duty — Poinon — Wood  alcohol.     (Joseph  E.  Hendrickson, 
10  P.  D.,  376.) 

Appellant  is  shown  to  have  become  totally  blind  in  both  eyes 
w^hile  in  the  service.  Blindness  developed  soon  after  the  inges- 
tion of  a  poisonous  quantity  of  wood  alcohol.  At  the  same  time 
the  soldier  was  convalescing  from  pneumonia,  which  was  com- 
plicated by  malarial  fever. 

The  evidence  on  file  warrants  the  conclusion  that  the  total  loss 
of  vision  in  this  case  was  due  to  wood-alcohol  poisoning  and  not 
to  malarial  poisoning,  as  alleged. 
Line    of   duty — Blindness — Wood   alcohol — Poison.      (Joseph    E. 
Hendrickson,  12  P.  D.,  269.) 

The  expert  evidence  filed  in  the  case  since  the  former  decision  in 
the  same  (10  P.  D.,  376)  was  rendered  emphasized  the  conclu- 
sions reached  in  said  former  decision  that  claimant's  loss  of 
vision  was  due  to  wood-alcohol  poisoning,  not  due  to  the  service 
in  line  of  duty,  and  said  decision  is  adhered  to,  and  the  motion 
to  reconsider  and  set  the  same  aside  is  overruled. 

5.  Provost-Marshal. 

Line    of    duty — Provost-Marshals — Evidence.     (Minor    of    James 
Hayne,  10  P.  D.,  345.) 

In  the  case  of  a  pr'ovost-marshal,  deputy  provost-marshal,  or 
enrolling  officer,  wounded  or  injured  during  the  period  in  which 
he  held  such  office,  there  is  no  presumption  that  such  w  ound  or 
injury  was  received  while  such  officer  was  in  the  discharge  of  his 
duty,  but  it  must  be  proved  that  such  officer  incurred  his  disa- 
bility in  the  actual  discharge  of  his  duty  as  such  officer. 


324  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

6.  Undergoing  Punishment. 

Line    of    duty — Undergoing    punish7ne7it.     (Sarah    J.    Hawkins, 
widow,  10  P.  D.,  370.) 

As  soldier's  death  cause  was  contracted  while  he  was  under 
arrest  and  confinement  under  sentence  of  a  court-martial  on  a 
charge  of  exciting  mutiny,  his  widow  is  not  pensionable,  for  the 
reason  that  said  death  cause  was  not  incurred  in  the  line  of  duty. 

Line    of   duty — Incurrence — Undergoing   punishment.     (John    J. 
Macentee,  12  P.  D.,  464.) 

The  claimant  being  at  time  of  incurrence  of  injuries  in  con- 
finement undergoing  sentence  of  a  court-martial,  he  was  not  in 
line  of  duty  for  pensionable  purposes. 

Line  of  duty — Undergoing  sentence.     (Fred  Gleeman,  15  P.  D., 

54.)  '..... 

Soldier  alleges  disability  incurred  while  undergoing  sentence 
of  court-martial,  the  act  which  caused  the  injury  not  being  one 
peculiarly  incident  to  his  duty  as  a  soldier  independent  of  that 
put  upon  him  by  the  sentence  of  court-martial. 

Held:  Not  in  line  of  duty. 

7.  Absent  from  Command. 

Line  of  duty — Leaoe  of  absence.  (William  Smith,  11  P.  D.,  30.) 
This  appellant  was  granted  leave  of  absence  by  his  command- 
ing officer  to  visit  his  family,  with  orders  to  return  and  report  to 
his  command  on  a  certain  day  and  at  a  designated  place.  In 
obedience  to  said  orders  he  returned  and  reported  at  the  place 
and  on  the  day  designated  therein,  but  found  that  his  command 
had  moved  on  and  Avas  not  at  said  place,  which  w^as  occupied  by 
the  enemy,  who  attacked  and  wounded  him. 

Held:  That  the  appellant  was  in  the  line  of  duty  when  wounded 
under  the  foregoing  circumstances. 

Line  of  duty — ^4  hsence  from  command — .4 cciden tal  injury.     ( James 
D.  Silman,  12P.  D.,431.) 

The  claimant  being  absent  from  his  camp,  by  permission,  to  visit 
a  near-by  town,  in  pursuit  of  his  own  pleasure  and  recreation, 
and  being  injured  in  the  right  eye  by  an  accidental  blow  from  a 
fireball  shot  from  a  roman  candle  during  Christmas  festivities 
in  the  town  was  not  in  line  of  duty,  and  is  not  entitled  to  pension 
on  account  of  such  injury  so  incurred. 

Line   of  duty — Absence   from   command — Section   Jt.702^   Revised 
Statutes.     (Minor  of  Anthony  J.  Brechbiel,  14  P.  D.,  114.) 

It  appearing  from  the  evidence  in  this  case  that  at  the  time 
this  soldier  lost  his  life  by  drowning  he  was  absent  from  his  com- 
mand on  a  pass,  attending  a  picnic  party  for  his  own  pleasure  and 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  325 

amusement,  he  was  not  in  "  line  of  duty  "  within  the  meaning  and 
intent  of  those  words  as  used  in  the  pension  laws,  and  his  death 
under  such  circumstances  confers  no  title  to  pension  upon  his 
minor  child  under  the  provisions  of  section  4702,  Revised  Stat- 
utes, and  the  decisions  of  this  Department. 

8.  Accidental  Wound. 

Line  of  duty — Accidental  discharge  of  f. rearms,  (George  E. 
Wykoff,  9P.  D.,  52.). 

Soldier  was  w^ounded  by  the  accidental  discharge  of  a  gun 
while  hunting  for  his  own  pleasure,  and  was  not  in  the  line  of 
duty. 
Line  of  duty — Accidental  wound.     (James  E.  Harrison,  9  P.  D., 
483.) 

Soldier,  by  permission  of  his  superior  officer,  was  engaged  in 
hunting  with  a  gun  for  his  own  pleasure  and  amusement,  and 
while  so  engaged  received  the  injury  alleged  as  a  basis  for  pen- 
sion, by  the  careless  and  negligent  handling  of  his  gun. 

Held:  That  he  was  not  in  line  of  duty. 
Line  of  duty — Evidence — Increase — Accidental  wound.     (Pinck- 
ney  Hopper,  11  P.  D.,  191.) 

.  The  certificates  of  medical  examination  made  under  the  claim 
for  increase  do  not  show  that  the  disabilities  from  pensioned 
causes  have  increased.  The  evidence  on  file  in  the  case  shows 
that  the  newly  alleged  disability  —  gunshot  wound  of  right 
ankle — was  not  incurred  in  line  of  duty,  having  been  caused  by 
the  accidental  discharge  of  a  pistol  carried  by  claimant  at  his  own 
risk. 
Line  of  duty  —  Accidental  injury  —  Pistol  wound  —  Negligence. 
(Joseph  Heimkel,  14  P.  D.,  203.) 

The  soldier  was  wounded  by  the  accidental  discharge  of  a  re- 
volver while  cleaning  it  in  quarters,  he  not  knowing  that  it  was 
loaded.  The  Army  Regulations  prohibit  the  taking  of  loaded 
weapons  to  quarters,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  he  knowingly 
and  willfully  disobeyed  regulations,  or  was  guilty  of  culpable  or 
gross  negligence  in  handling  the  weapon.  It  is  therefore  held 
that  the  wound  was  incurred  in  line  of  duty. 

8.  Accidental  Wound. 

Line  of  duty — Accidental  injury  while  scuffling.  (Addie  F. 
Wilde,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  506.) 

The  soldier  was  shot  accidentally,  by  a  comrade  whom  he  had 
pulled  out  of  bed  "  in  a  playful  manner." 

Held:  That  the  wound  was  not  received  in  the  line  of  duty. 


326  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

9.  Killed  Accidentally  by  Falling  from  Window. 

Line  of  duty — Death  cause — Accidental  fall.  (Mary  E.  Parker, 
now  Resdin,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  103.) 

Soldier  was  killed  by  a  fall  from  a  window  at  the  hotel  at 
which  he  was  stopping  just  prior  to  his  final  payment  and  the 
disbandment  of  his  command.  It  is  held  that  his  death  was  not 
due  to  his  military  service  in  line  of  duty. 

10.  Killed  while  Hunting. 

Line  of  duty — On  a  pass  to  hunt.  (Minor  of  James  S.  Marsteller, 
11  P.  D.,  55.) 

The  officer,  father  of  this  minor,  having  been  killed  by  the 
accidental  discharge  of  his  gun  while  hunting  by  permission  of 
the  commanding  officer  of  the  post,  not  the  consequence  of  any 
willful  neglect  or  improper  conduct  on  his  part,  his  death  is 
considered  to  have  occurred  in  the  line  of  duty,  the  commander 
of  said  post  reporting  that  said  officer  at  the  time  he  was  killed 
was  considered  on  detached  service.  (See  case  of  Margaret  M. 
Hoffman,  9  P.  D.,  277.) 

11.  May  Be  Presumed  When. 

Incurrence — Line  of  duty — Evidence — Presumptiort .  (Francis 
Baltzer,  11  P.  D.,  510.) 

The  prior  soundness  of  the  claimant  being  well  established 
and  it  being  shown  that  he  performed  active  duty  of  the  most 
arduous  character,  immediately  following  which  he  was  taken 
sick  with  a  congestive  chill  and  sent  to  hospital,  where  after 

■  three  months'  treatment  he  was  discharged  the  service  on  ac- 
count of  inguinal  hernia  and  synovitis  of  the  knee  joint,  and 
there  being  no  intimation  that  the  claimant  Avas  at  any  time  out- 
side the  line  of  duty,  it  will  be  presumed  that  his  alleged  double 
hernia  was  the  result  of  his  military  service  in  line  of  duty. 

Line  of  duty — Evidence — Presumptions.  (William  D.  Mitchell, 
11  P.  D.,  84.) 

When  prior  soundness  is  shown,  and  a  reasonable  degree  of 
proof  that  the  injury  was  sustained  in  the  service  is  furnished, 
there  being  no  circumstances  which  would  raise  a  suspicion  that 
it  was  incurred  outside  the  line  of  duty,  and  such  injury  is 
shown  to  have  existed  at  discharge,  it  will  be  presumed  that  the 
injury  was  incurred  in  line  of  duty. 

12.  Retired  Officer. 

Line  of  duty — Retired  officer — Origin.     (Catherine  Meade,  widow, 
11  P.  D.,'28.) 
A  soldier,  retired  after  thirty  years'  service,  can  not  be  con- 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


327 


sidered  as  still  in  the  service  for  pensionable  purposes  without 
due  proof  of  the  origin  of  disability  in  line  of  duty.  The  service 
contemplated  by  the  law  is  active  service,  and  disability  or  death 
must  be  shown  to  be  due  thereto. 

Soldier  having  had  syphilis  in  service  and  there  being  intervals 
between  his  enlistments,  as  well  as  four  years  of  separation  from 
active  service  after  his  retirement,  can  not  be  presumed  to  have 
contracted  disease  of  urinary  organs,  which  led  to  his  death,  in 
service  and  line  of  duty  simply  because  his  active  service  ex- 
tended over  thirty  years.  Definite  proof  of  origin  and  continu- 
ance is  necessary. 

[13.  Pass  to  Visit. 

Line  of  duty — On  a  pass  to  visit  friends.     (Robert  A.  Smith,  12 
P.  D.,  142.) 

The  evidence  showing  that  the  injury  for  which  claimant  seeks 
pension  was  incurred  while  he  was  absent  from  his  proper  com- 
mand by  verbal  permission  of  his  captain,  for  the  purpose  of 
visiting  his  family,  and  that  at  the  time  of  said  injury  he  was  not 
performing  any  military  service,  but  was  running  from  some 
rebel  cavalr}^,  having  joined,  in  his  flight,  some  other  troops, 
with  whom  he  remained  several  days  hiding  out  in  the  woods, 
it  is 

Held:  That  his  injury  was  not  incurred  in  the  line  of  duty. 

14.  In  Arrest  Awaiting  Trial. 
Line  of  duty — In  arrest  atvaiting  trial — Death.     (Sarah  Phillips, 
now  Clark,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  2i3.) 

A  disease  contracted  by  soldier  while  in  confinement  awaiting 
trial  for  a  breach  of  military  duty  is  not  necessarily  incurred 
without  the  line  of  duty,  and  when  the  soldier  is  acquitted,  or 
died  while  awaiting  trial,  a  disease  so  contracted  is  held  to  have 
been  incurred  in  line  of  duty. 

[15.  Evidence — Origin. 

Incurre7ice — Line  of  duty — Typhoid  fever — Incubation.     (Arthur 
G.  Mellinger,  13  P.  D.,  358.) 

The  rejection  of  the  claim  for  typhoid  fever  and  alleged  result- 
ing disease  of  eyes  and  lungs  upon  the  ground  that  the  same  was 
not  incurred  in  line  of  duty,  claimant  being  absent  from  his  com- 
mand on  verbal  furlough  at  date  of  incurrence,  was  improper, 
inasmuch  as  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  incubation  stage  of 
said  fever  may  have  extended  beyond  the  date  of  the  furlough. 
The  claim  is  therefore  returned  for  read  judication,  treating  dis- 
ease of  eyes  and  typhoid  fever  and  alleged  results  thereof  as 
distinct  affections. 


328  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Line  of  duty — Evidence — Origin.     (Edward  T.  Courtney,  14  P.  D.,, 
518.) 

The  evidence  showing  that  the  claimant  incurred  a  hernia  of 
the  right  side  while  in  the  service,  with  a  strong  probability  that 
it  was  incurred  in  the  line  of  duty,  it  is  held  that  whatever  of 
doubt  there  may  be  as  to  origin  in  line  of  duty  should  be  resolved 
in  his  favor. 

16.  Senile  Cataract. 

Line  of  duty — Senile  cataract.    (Jeremiah  Bowman,  14  P.  D.,495.) 
A  disability  due  to  senile  cataract  is  not  pensionable  under 
the  general  law  as  construed  by  the  Attorney-General   (7  Op., 
149),  because  the  same  is  not  due  to  the  service  in  line  of  duty. 

17.  Accidental  Injury. 

Line  of  duty — Accidental  injury.     (Henry  A.  Helmer,  9  P.  D., 
130.) 

Soldier,  while  riding  over  the  battlefield  of  Pea  Ridge,  Ark., 
after  that  battle,  for  his  own  amusement,  on  a  horse  he  had  bor- 
rowed from  his  captain,  was  thrown  and  sustained  an  injury 
upon  which  he  based  a  claim  for  pension.  It  is  held  that  said 
injury  was  not  incurred  in  line  of  duty.  (Reaffirming  same  case, 
7  P.  D.,  396.) 

Line  of  duty — Accidental  injury.     (Delbert  H.  Ensor,  14  P.  D., 
81.) 

The  record  shows  that  the  soldier  incurred  the  dislocation  of 
his  left  arm,  for  which  pension  is  claimed,  while  scuffling  in  the 
barracks  and  that  he  was  not  in  line  of  duty. 

18.  Assisting  a  Teamster. 

Line  of  duty.     (Henry  Miller,  9  P.  D.,  74.) 

Claimant,  after  being  relieved  from  guard  duty,  assisted  a 
teamster  in  watering  mules.  He  was  not  disobeying  orders,  his 
act  was  not  in  violation  of  army  regulations,  but  was  aiding  a 
comrade  in  caring  for  and  protecting  Government  property,  and 
was  doing  something  which  he  not  only  had  a  right  to  do,  but 
said  act  was  commendable,  and  resulted,  if  his  allegations  are 
true,  in  his  being  fired  upon  by  the  enemy  and  injured,  and  he 
was  in  line  of  duty. 

19.  Beath  from  Drinking  Unboiled  Water. 

Line  of  duty — Death  from  drinking  unboiled  water.     (Ellen  C 
Taylor,  mother,  15  P.  D.,  315.) 

Soldier,  while  engaged  in  military  operations  in  the  enemy's 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  329 

country,  a  hot  climate,  drank  unboiled  water,  contrary  to  exist- 
ing orders.  He  subsequently  died  of  Asiatic  ch  )lera,  the  cause 
of  which  is  ascribed  to  drinking  contaminated  water,  "not  in 
line  of  duty,"  on  account  of  orders  not  to  drink  unboiled  water. 
The  evidence  does  not  show  said  act  to  be  exclusively  the  cause 
of  the  fatal  disease,  the  possible  etiological  factors  thereof  being 
manifold. 

Held:   Soldier's  death  was  incurred  in  line  of  duty. 

Where,  in  wanton  defiance  of  orders  a  soldier,  having  the 
opportunity  of  using  sterilized  water,  deliberately  drinks  un- 
boiled water  under  circumstances  reasonably  to  exclude  all  other 
pathological  factors  in  accounting  for  a  disease  which  may  appa- 
ently  result  from  such  an  act,  the  incurrence  of  the  resulting  dis- 
ability is  not  in  line  of  duty.  But  where  a  soldier,  on  a  campaign 
when  sterilized  water  may  not  be  immediately  accessible,  yields 
to  a  natural  impulse  to  satisfy  thirst,  despite  existing  orders  to 
drink  boiled  water  only,  he  is  not  out  of  line  of  duty  for  pension 
purposes. 

ANNOTATION. 

Unpiihlished  decisions  involving. — In  claim  No.  1286694,  of  John 
J.  Finnegan,  Company  F,  Twenty-second  U.  S.  Infantry,  which 
this  Bureau  had  rejected  on  the  ground  of  "  claimant's  inability 
to  furnish  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  double  inguinal  hernia 
alleged  had  been  incurred  in  service  and  line  of  duty,"  the 
Secretary  reversed  the  Bureau  and  held : 

"  Origin  of  double  inguinal  hernia  in  the  service  and  in  line  of 
duty  is  shown  by  the  records  of  the  War  Department,  and  should 
have  been  accepted."  He  also  says:  "In  the  absence  of  any 
evidence  that  the  disabilities  alleged  as  having  been  contracted 
in  line  of  duty  and  so  reported,  were  not  so  contracted,  it  clearly 
should  be  assumed  that  soldier  was  sound  at  the  date  of  his 
enlistment,  and  that  the  disabilities  reported  originated  while 
in  said  service  and  while  soldier  was  in  line  of  duty." 

In  claim  No.  1227608,  of  John  D.  Webb,  Company  K,  Sixth 
U.  S.  Infantry,  the  Secretary  also  holds :  "  The  company  muster- 
out  roll  of  the  company  in  w^hich  soldier  served  shows  that  the  dis- 
ability alleged,  fracture  of  left  leg,  was  incurred  in  line  of  duty, 
and  it  should  have  been  so  accepted  by  the  Bureau.  Action  of 
rejection  reversed." 

In  this  claim  the  injury  was  received  while  claimant  was  tossing 
a  ball,  but  no  witness  could  be  located  who  witnessed  the  accident, 
but  the  muster-out  roll  of  the  company  gives  him  as  "  sick  in 
hospital,"  and  "  line  of  duty,"  immediately  after  accident.     The 


330  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

report  from  the  medical  records  show  treatment  for  fracture  of 
leg,  at  one  time  showing  "  in  line  of  duty,"  and  at  another  time 
"  not  in  line  of  duty,"  but  the  Secretary  holds  that  the  officers 
of  the  company  should  have  had  more  direct  knowledge  than 
the  officials  of  the  hospital  could  have  had,  and  that  the  former 
should  have  been  accepted. 

LOCOMOTOE  ATAXIA. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  16  (14  P.  D.,  542). 

LOST  WARRANT. 

See  Bounty  Land:  No.  1  (12  P.  D.,  184). 

LOUISIANA  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2(p)    (11  P.  D.,  3.39;  12  P.  D.,  .382;  13  P.  D.,  98; 

14  P.  D.,  344)  ;  No.  2(p)    (1.5  P.  D.,  5.30)  ;  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  393)  ; 

No.  15  (13  P.  D.,  173). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  13,  14,  and  15  P.  D. 

MAINE  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2(q)   (14  P.  D.,  .349)  ;  No.  4  (13  P.  D..  272). 

"MAINE,"  THE 

See  Commencement:  No.  11  (12  P.  D.,  428). 

MALARIA. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  13  (13  P.  D.,  313). 

MALARIAL  POISONING. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  13  (13  P.  D.,  .313). 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  Nos.  6,  16,  22  (12  P.  D.,  486;  14  P.  D., 
542;  15P.  D.,  249). 

MARITAL  DESERTION. 

See  Division  of  Pension:  Nos.  1,  4,  10,  12,  13,  15  (15  P.  D.,  221; 
11  P.  D.,  260;  12  P.  D.,  7,  56,  421,  507;  13  P.  D.,  134,  142,  14.3,  177, 
180,  212,  430;  14  P.  D.,  45,  404,  1.30,  1.59,  191,  394,  .521  ;  ]5  P.  D.,  90, 
342 ;  15  P.  D.,  132 ;  13  P.  D.,  218,  422 ;  13  P.  D.,  77,  424 ;  14  P.  D.. 
146;  15  P.  D.,  298;  15  P.  D.,  557). 

MARRIAGE. 

References. 

See  Adulterous  Cohabitation:  No.  6   (14  P.  D.,  242);  No.  7   (14 

P.  D.,  362)  ;  No.  10  (12  P.  D.,  258). 
See  Decree  of  Nullity:  Nos.  1,  2,  .3,  4,  5.  6.  7  (10  P.  D.,  238,  284; 

11  P.  D.,  271 ;  13  P.  D.,  460;  14  P.  D.,  290 ;  15  P.  D.,  227.  286,  470). 
See   Dependent   Parents:  No.    3    (10  P.    D.,    153;    12   P.    D.,   24); 

No.  6  (10  P.  D.,  244;  12  P.  D.,  509). 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


331 


See  Divorce:  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10  (10  P.  D.,  1,  311,  348; 

11  P.  D.,  499 ;  12  P.  D.  303,  445,  474 ;  13  P.  D.,  08,  208,  236 ;  14  P.  D., 

99,  173,  279,  438,  535;  15  P.  D.,  128,  174,  278,  553). 
See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  12  (13  P.  D.,  120,  218,  297)  ;  No.  13 

(15  P.  D.,  246)  ;  No.  15  (14  P.  D.,  230,  234)  ;  No.  18  (14  P.  D.,  177; 

15  P.  D.,  136)  ;  No.  20  (15  P.  D.,  143). 
See  Estoppel:  Nos.  1,  2,  3  (11  P.  D.,  195,  403;  14  P.  D.,  469). 
See  Evidence:  No.  9  (11  P.  D.,  102)  ;  No.  10  (10  P.  D.,  51). 
See  Insane  Persons:  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  270). 
See  Legitimacy:  Nos.   1,  2,  3,  4,  6,  7,  8   (9  P.  D.,  199;  11  P.  D., 

40,  278,  294;  12  P.  D.,  102;  13  P.  D.,  414,  541;  14  P.  D.,  474;  15 

P.  D.,  386). 
See  Limitation:  No.  5  (12  P.  D.,  479). 
See  Minors:  No.  2  (13  P.  D.,  151). 
See  Restoration  :  Nos.  2  and  4  (12  P.  D.,  510;  13  P.  D.,  441). 


Index. 


1.  Burden  of  proof. 

2. 

Laws  as  to  marriage — Cont'd. 

2.  Laws  as  to  marriage. 

(gg)  Pennsylvania. 

(a)  District  of  Columbia. 

(hh)  Rhode  Island. 

(b)  Arkansas. 

(ii)  South  Carolina. 

(c)  Alabama    and    Arizona 

(jj)  South  Dakota. 

Territory. 

(kk)  Tennessee. 

(d)  California. 

(11)  Texas. 

(e)  Colorado. 

(mm)  Utah. 

(f)  Connecticut. 

(nn)  Vermont. 

(g)  Delaware. 

(oo)  Virginia. 

(h)  Florida. 

(PP)  Washington. 

(i)  (Teorgia. 

(qq)  West  Virginia. 

(j)  Idaho. 

(rr)  Wisconsin. 

(k)  Illinois. 

(ss)  Wyoming;  also  New  Mex- 

(1) Indiana. 

ico,    Cherokee    Nation, 

(m)  Iowa. 

and  Choctaw  Nation. 

(n)  Kansas. 

3. 

Former  marriage  no  bar. 

(o)  Kentucky. 

(a)  Generally. 

(p)  Louisiana. 

(b)  Claimants'  admissions. 

(q)  Maine. 

(c)  Soldiers'  admissions. 

(r)  Maryland. 

4. 

Former  marriage  held  a  bar. 

(s)  Massachusetts. 

5. 

Fraud. 

(t)  Michigan. 

6. 

Hearsay  evidence  as  to  death. 

(u)  Minnesota. 

7. 

Impediment  of  blood. 

(v)  Mississippi. 

8. 

Indian  marriages. 

•  (w)  Missouri. 

9. 

Insanity. 

(x)  Montana. 

10. 

Marriage  after  passage  of  act  June 

(y)  Nebraska. 

27,  1890. 

(y-z)  Nevada. 

11. 

Marriage  determined  by  the  lex 

(z)  New  Hampshire. 

loci. 

(aa)  New  Jersey. 

12. 

Presumption  of  death. 

(bb)  New  York. 

13. 

Presumption  of  divorce. 

New  Mexico. 

14. 

Remarriage   prior    to    June    27, 

(cc)  North  Carolina. 

1890. 

(dd)  North  Dakota. 

15. 

Slave  marriages. 

(ee)  Ohio. 

16. 

Widows'  pension  act  March  19, 

(ff)  Oregon. 

1886. 

3:^2  PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

1.  Burden  of  Proof. 

Marriage — Impediment — Evidence.  (Lizzie  Yates,  widow,  10  P. 
D.,446.) 

The  mere  fact  that  Yates  was  a  "  widower  "  when  he  married 
claimant  is  assumed  to  be  sufficient  ground  on  which  to  compel 
claimant  to  furnish  positive  evidence  of  the  death  or  divorce  of 
the  former  wife. 

Held:  Claimant  having  shown  a  ceremonial  marriage,  and 
there  not  being  the  shadow  of  a  suspicion  (beyond  the  fact  that 
the  officer  was  a  widower)  that  claimant's  marriage  was  not  a 
lawful  one,  the  burden  of  proof  is  upon  the  Government  to  shoAv 
the  illegality  of  such  marriage.  (Stewart  on  M.  and  D.,  Chap. 
XVIII.) 

Marriage — Evidence — Burden  of  proof.  (Henrietta  Kirchner. 
widow,  12  P.  D.,  296.) 

Appellant  was  married  to  the  soldier  in  legal  form  in  1882,  and 
lived  with  him  in  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife  from  the  date 
of  such  marriage  to  the  date  of  his  death  in  1896,  leaving  three 
children,  the  result  of  said  union.  Appellant  was  never  married 
prior  to  her  marriage  to  soldier,  and  no  evidence  appears  in  the 
case  tending  to  show  that  soldier  was  ever  previously  married, 
but  all  the  evidence  in  the  case  show^s  that  he  was  known  only  as 
a  single  man  or  bachelor.  It  is  held  that  the  marriage  thus 
shown  was  subject  to  attack  only  on  clear  and  satisfactory  evi- 
dence of  a  want  of  capacity  of  the  husband,  which  in  this  case 
has  not  been  shown,  and  claimant's  marriage  to  soldier  is  shown 
to  have  been  legal  and  she  is  his  widow. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Emdence — Burden  of  proof — Dirision  of 
pension — Act  March  3, 1899.  (Strunk  v.  Button  and  Strunk,  14 
P.  D.,  17.) 

It  is  a  rule  of  evidence  recognized  and  enforced  by  the  State 
and  Federal  courts  generally  that  a  party  attacking  a  duly  estab- 
lished marriage  on  the  ground  that  one  of  the  parties  to  such 
marriage  was  incompetent  to  contract  the  marriage  by  reason  of 
a  prior  subsisting  marriage,  must  not  only  prove  a  valid  prior 
marriage,  but  also  that  it  has  not  been  dissolved  at'the  time  of  the 
second  marriage,  even  though  it  involves  the  proving  of  a  nega- 
tive; that  every  presumption  is  in  favor  of  the  validity  of  the 
established  marriage,  and  these  presumptions  must  be  overcome 
by  satisfactory  irrefragable  proof,  the  burden  of  proof  being 
upon  the  party  attacking  the  marriage. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Division  of  pension — Act  March  3,  J 899. 
(Willie  v.  Wilson,  alias  Willie,  14  P.  D.,  43.) 
The  evidence  in  this  case  fairly  shows  that  claimant  was  mar- 


I 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  333 

ried  to  pensioner  in  Cook  County,  111.,  May  31,  1888;  that  he 
deserted  her  in  1896,  and  that  she  is  a  woman  of  good  moral 
character  and  in  necessitous  circumstances. 

Pensioner  contends  that  his  marriage  to  claimant  was  illegal 
because  he  had  previously  married  one  Venelia  C.  Hart,  from 
whom  he  was  never  divorced  on  his  application,  although  ad- 
mitting that  he  did  not  know  whether  she  had  obtained  a  divorce 
or  was  alive  at  the  date  of  his  marriage  to  and  separation  from 
claimant. 

The  law  presumes  in  favor  of  innocence  in  support  of  a  duly 
established  marriage,  and  the  party  attacking  the  validity  of 
such  a  marriage  on  the  ground  that  one  of  the  parties  to  such 
marriage  was  incompetent  to  contract  the  marriage  by  reason  of 
a  prior  subsisting  marriage,  must  not  only  prove  a  valid  prior 
marriage,  but  also  prove  that  it  had  not  been  dissolved  at  the 
time  of  the  second  marriage  even  though  it  involves  the  proving 
of  a  negative. 

2.  Laws  as  to  Marriage. 

(a)   District  of  Columbia. 

Marriage  —  District    of    Columbia.     (Henry    Higgins,    deceased; 

Annie  Higgins,  widow.     10  P.  D.,  110.) 

1.  The  rates  of  pension  allowed  in  the  deceased  soldier's  claim 

were  in  accordance  with  the  certificates  of  medical  examination 

therein. 
\       2.  A  marriage  per  verba  de  presenti  was  valid  at  common  law, 

and  is  valid  Avithin  the  District  of  Columbia.     (Thomas  v.  Holtz- 

man,  18  D.  C,  62;  Meister  v.  Moore,  96  U.  S.,  76.) 

Marriage  —  District    of    Columbia  —  Iowa.      (Maria    McCarthy, 
widow,  10  P.  D.,  118.) 

1.  A  statute  regulating  the  forms  of  marriage  is  merely  direc- 
tory, and  -unless  it  contains  an  express  clause  of  nullity  a  mar- 
riage valid  at  common  law  is  valid  under  such  a  statute. 

2.  The  statutes  in  force  in  the  District  of  Columbia  contain  no 
express  clause  of  nullity,  and  a  marriage  valid  at  common  law  is 
valid  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

3.  A  marriage  valid  at  common  law  is  valid  in  the  State  of 
Iowa.     (See  case  of  Annie  Dennis,  9  P.  D.,  243.) 

Marriage  —  District  of  Columbia  —  Evidence.     (Bridget  Butler, 
widow,  13  P.  D.,  234.) 

Whether  the  claimant  and  soldier  were  married  in  Ireland  or 
not,  there  is  sufficient  proof  of  common -law  marriage  in  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia;  therefore  the  claim  was  improperly  rejected. 


334  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

(b)  Arkansas. 

See  Divorce;  No.  2  (11  P.  D.,  -Km;). 
See  Legitimacy;  No.  5  (12  P.  D..  102). 
See  Marriage:  No.  2  (ii)  (15  P.  D.,  540). 

Marriage — ^4 rkansas — E ridence — Pi^esmnption  of  capacity.     ( Mol- 
lie  Dunn,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  223.) 

The  presumption  of  the  validity  of  a  subsequent  marriage  in 
Arkansas  is  so  strong  that  proof  of  a  prior  marriage  of  either 
party,  undissolved  by  death  or  divorce  five  years  before  said 
subsequent  marriage,  is  insufficient  to  rebut  the  presumption 
that  the  parties  to  said  last  marriage  had  full  capacity  to  con- 
tract it. 
Marriage  —  Arkansas  —  Legitimacy  —  Impediment  —  Minors. 
(Minor  of  Elisha  Dobbs,  15  P.  D.,  488.) 

The  legitimacy  of  a  child  for  pensionable  purposes  is  depend- 
ent upon  the  marital  status  of  its  parents,  and  this  must  be  deter- 
mined under  the  act  of  August  7,  1882,  or  under  section  4704, 
Revised  Statutes.  A  State  statute  as  to  legitimacy  of  children 
has  no  force  in  pension  claims.  (Minor  of  Edw^ard  Plount,  14 
P.  D.,428.) 

A  presumption  of  remarriage  after  the  removal  of  an  impedi- 
ment to  an  attempted  marriage  does  not  prevail  in  Arkansas, 
even  Avhen  the  continued  cohabitation,  though  illicit,  was  not 
meretricious  on  the  part  of  one  or  both  of  the  parties  thereto. 

(c)  Alabama. 

See  10  P.  D.,  293,  and  Laws  of. 

(d)  Arizona. 

See  Divorce  :  No.  2  (11  P.  D.,  226). 

(e)  California. 

See  Marriage:  No.  11  (15  P.  D.,  459). 
See  11  P.  D..  144 ;  14  P.  D.,  260. 

See  -Laws  of ;  also  Tables  of  State  Statutes   for  11,   14,  and  15 
P.  D. 

Marriage  and  divorce — California — Evidence,     (Rachel  J.  Sebas- 
tian, widow,  11  P.  D.,  144.) 

In  the  absence  of  consent  the  mutual  assumption  of  marital 
rights,  duties,  arid  obligations  can  not,  under  the  statutes  of  Cali.- 
fornia,  constitute  marriage. 
Marriage  and  divorce — California — Limitation — Nullity — Decree. 
(Bridget  Shay,  mother,  14  P.  D.,  265.) 

Appellant's  claim  was  rejected  on  the  ground  that  her  son, 
the  sailor,  left  a  widow  surviving  him,  who  is  now  a  pensioner. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  335 

Sailor  was  married  to  Lola  B.  Worth  at  Pasadena,  Cal.,  March 
7,  1898.  She  had  previously  been  married,  but  her  husband 
procured  a  divorce  from  her  in  Cook  County,  111.,  on  November 
20,  1897,  three  months  and  fifteen  days  prior  to  her  marriage  to 
sailor.  An  amendment  of  the  California  Code,  passed  in  1901, 
provided  that  the  subsequent  marriage  of  any  person  during 
the  lifetime  of  a  former  husband  or  wife  is  illegal  and  void 
from  the  beginning,  unless — 

1.  The  former  has.  been  annulled  or  dissolved  by  a  decree 
entered  at  least  one  year  prior  to  such  subsequent  marriage. 

2.  Unless  such  former  husband  or  wife  was  absent  or  was  gen- 
erally reputed  *  *  *  to  be  dead  at  the  time  such  subsequent 
marriage  was  contracted ;  in  either  of  which  cases  the  subsequent 
marriage  is  valid  until  its  nullity  is  adjudged  by  a  competent 
tribunal. 

Held :  1.  That  as  it  does  not  appear  that  the  marriage  referred 
to  was  ever  annulled  by  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction,  the 
presumption  is  that  sailor  left  a  lawful  wife  surviving  him. 

2.  That  as  the  limitation  prescribed  by  the  California  code 
was  not  enacted  until  after  the  marriage  in  question,  the  same 
has  no  application  thereto. 
Marriage — Califormia     laws — Presumption     of    death — Evidence, 
(Rosannah  Cash,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  103.) 

The  claimant  remarried  after  more  than  five  years  had  elapsed 
since  she  had  heard  from  her  former  husband,  and  in  the  honest 
and  warranted  belief  that  he  was  dead. 

Held:  She  is  not  the  widow^  of  the  soldier,  under  the  laws  of 
the  State  of  California,  said  State  being  the  forum  in  which  the 
issue  must  be  decided.  (Sec.  61,  Civil  Code  of  Cal.;  Jackson  v. 
Jackson,  94  Cal.,  436.) 

(e)  Colorado. 

See  Divorce:  No.  2  (10  P.  D.,  434)  ;  No.  9  (15  P.  D.,  553). 
Marriage — Colorado — Impediment — Presumption  of  death.   (Mary 
A.  Woodward,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  253.) 

1.  A  common-law  marriage  is  valid  in  Colorado. 

2.  Where  a  man  and  woman  are  formally  married,  in  igno- 
rance of  the  fact  that  an  impediment  to  valid  marriage  exists, 
and  thereafter  cohabit  as  man  and  wife  and  hold  themselves  out 
as  such,  a  valid  marriage  will  arise  upon  the  removal  of  th(3 
impediment  during  such  cohabitation. 

3.  Soldier's  first  wife  filed  a  claim  for  pension  in  August,  1870, 
and  was  never  afterwards  heard  from  by  the  Bureau,  and  on 
diligent  inquiry  no  person  was  found  who  would  have  been 
likely  to  have  heard  of  or  from  her  if  living,  and,  no  informa- 


336  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

tion  as  to  her  being  alive  since  that  date  having  been  obtained, 
her  death  is  presumed. 

Marriage — Colorado — Divorce — Evidence — Cohabitation.    ( Ella  S. 
Hawley,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  493.) 

Soldier  deserted  his  wife  and  children  in  Illinois  in  187()  and 
eloped  with  claimant.  His  wife  was  divorced  from  him  in 
1879,  and  he  and  claimant  cohabited  and  were  recognized  as 
husband  and  wife  in  Colorado  until  his  death  in  1891.  It  is 
held  that  the  relations  of  these  parties  were  meretricious  to  the 
end,  as  claimant  repeatedly  refused  his  offer  of  marriage  at  a 
time  when  he  was  competent  to  contract. 

(f)  Connecticut. 

Marriage  —  Connecticut   laws  —  Evidence  —  Impediment.     (Eliza 
Boazman,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  355.) 

There  is  record  evidence  of  claimant's  marriage  to  the  soldier 
on  December  17, 18()8,  in  the  State  of  Connecticut,  and  it  is  shown 
that-  the  parties  lived  and  cohabited  together  as  husband  and 
wife  thereafter  until  soldier's  death,  six  years  later.  Claimant 
admits  a  prior  marriage  many  years  ago,  but  swears  that  said 
first  husband  went  away  and  never  returned,  and  she  was  in- 
formed about  the  close  of  the  war  that  he  was  dead,  a  newspaper 
notice  of  his  death  having  been  read  to  her. 

Under  the  laws  of  Connecticut,  a  marriage  being  proved  by 
competent  evidence,  the  law  raises  a  presumption  in  fa\'or  of  its 
legality,  and  such  previous  marriage  did  not  cast  the  burden 
upon  the  claimant  of  proving  either  that  the  former  husband  was 
dead  or,  if  living,  that  a  legal  divorce  had  been  granted. 

Marriage  —  Connecticut  —  New       York  —  Illinois  —  Impediment. 
(Sarah  A.  Bartlett,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  290.) 

A  marriage  per  A^erba  de  praesenti  is  not  a  lawful  marriage  in 
Connecticut,  where  the  right  to  pension  accrued.  But  evidence 
of  cohabitation  and  reputation  is  competent  in  proof  of  the  fact 
of  a  lawful  marriage. 

It  being  possible  that  a  common-law  marriage  arose  between 
soldier  and  claimant,  in  either  Xew  York  or  Illinois,  after  the 
removal  of  the  impediment  to  the  legality  of  their  formal  mar- 
riage in  Xew  York,  the  case  is  remanded  for  further  evidence  as 
to  the  character  of  their  cohabitation  in  said  last-mentioned 
States. 

(g)  Delaware. 

See  14  P.  D.,  527,  528. 

See  Laws  of,  and  Table  of  "  State  Statutes  "  for  14  P.  D. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  337 

Marriage — Laws  of  Delaware — Ceremony — Act  of  June  27^  1890. 
(Frances  Hopkins,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  527.) 

Claimant  and  soldier  lived  together  from  a  date  subsequent  to 
the  civil  war  to  about  the  years  1897  or  1898,  when  they  were 
married  by  a  ceremony. 

Some  positive  act  or  ceremony  is  necessary  to  render  valid  a 
marriage  contract  in  the  State  of  Delaware.  (Revised  Code 
State  of  Delaware,  chap.  74,  sec.  2;  Jackson  v.  Benjamin  Collins, 
2  Houston,  128;  State  i;.  Miller,  3  Pennewill,  518.) 

(h)   Florida. 

See  Marriage:  No.  15  (14  P.  D.,  383). 

See  Laws  of,  and  Table  of  "  State  Statutes  "  for  14  P.  D. 

Marriage — Slaves — Laws  of  Florida — Act  of  June  27^  1890.  (Bet- 
tie  Rankins,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  383.) 

The  slave  marriage  between  claimant  and  sailor  was  of  no  force 
or  effect  under  the  laws  of  Florida,  where  they  resided,  there  hav- 
ing been  no  cohabitation  between  them  after  their  emancipation. 

(i)   Georgia. 

No  case, 
(j)   Idaho. 

No  case, 
(k)   Illinois. 

See  Divorce:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  1)  ;   No.  2  (13  P.  D.,  68)  ;   No.  3  (11 

P.  D.,406). 
See  Marriage:  No.  1  (14  P.  D.,  43)  ;  No.  2(d)    (14  P.  D.,  265)  ;  No. 
.     2(f)   (15  P.  D.,  290)  ;  No.  2(u)   (15  P.  D.,  236)  ;  No.  3(a)   (lOP.IX, 
294;  11  P.  D.,  320)  ;  No.  4  (12  P.  D.,  326)  ;  No.  12  (14  P.  D.,  442; 
9  P.  D.,  243;  11  P.  D.,  43). 

Marriage  and  Divorce — Laws  of  Illinois — I ni pediment.  (Eliza  B. 
Wilson,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  481.) 

In  this  case  soldier  married  claimant  while  he  had  an  undi- 
vorced  wife  living,  of  which  claimant  was  ignorant.  Three 
months  after  such  marriage  soldier  procured  a  decree  of  divorce 
from  his  first  wife,  evidencing  his  desire  to  remove  any  impedi- 
ment to  such  marriage. 

Held:  That  these  facts  warrant  a  special  examination  to  deter- 
mine the  facts  as  to  when  soldier  filed  his  bill  for  divorce,  the 
date  of  the  default  decree,  and  all  facts  bearing  on  the  intention 
of  the  parties  to  live  in  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife  subse- 
quent to  the  removal  of  the  impediment  to  their  legal  marriage, 

13070—06 22 


338  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

distinguishing   this   case    from    that   of    Cartwright   et   al.    v. 
McGown  (121  111.,  388). 

Marriage — Illinois — Presumption — Divorce — Evidence.  (Rachel 
Hays,  formerly  Collier,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  186.) 

1.  The  dissolution  of  a  former  marriage  by  divorce  will  be  pre- 
sumed to  validate  a  subsequent  marriage. 

2.  Where  parties  to  a  marriage  in  good  faith  intend  matri- 
mony, not  concubinage,  and  contract  such  marriage  in  ignorance 
that  an  impediment  exists,  the  fact  that  they  live  together  after 
the  removal  of  said  impediment,  with  the  continued  desire  and 
intention  of  being  married,  is  sufficient  proof  of  a  common-law 
marriage.  Cartwright  v.  McGown  (121  111.,  388)  distinguished; 
Manning  v.  Spurck  (199  111.,  447)  followed. 

Case  of  Mary  B.  McCollum  (6  P.  D.,  93)  distinguished. 

(1)   Indiana. 

See  Decbee  of  Nullity:  No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  271). 

See  Divorce:  No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  226)  ;    No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  236)  ;    No.  5 

(15  P.  D.,  278)  ;    No.  10  (15  P.  D.,  389). 
See  Division  of  Pensions:  No.  12  (13  P.  D.,  218). 
See  Marriage:  Nos.  4,  5  (9  P.  D.,  5:    10  P.  D.,  258). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  9,  11,  and  15  P.  D. 

Marriage  —  Divorce  —  Laws  of  Indiana  —  Evidence  —  Death. 
(Christena  E.  Allburn,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  333.) 

It  is  settled  law  in  Indiana  that  when  a  marriage  has  been  con- 
summated in  accordance  with  the  forms  of  law  it  is  presumed 
that  no  legal  impediment  existed  to  the  parties  entering  into  such 
marriage,  and  the  fact,  if  shown,  that  either  or  both  of  the 
parties  have  been  previously  married,  and  that  such  wife  or  hus- 
band of  the  first  marriage  is  still  living,  does  not  destroy  the 
prima  facie  legality  of  the  last  marriage.  The  presumption  in 
such  cases  is  that  the  former  marriage  has  been  legally  dissolved 
and  the  burden  that  it  was  not  rests  upon  the  party  seeking  to 
impeach  the  last  marriage.  (Wenning  et  al.  v.  Teeple  et  al., 
144  Ind.,  189.) 

Marriage  —  Indiana  —  Presumption  —  Divorce  —  Evidence. 
(Sarah  J.  Shadle,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  229.) 

Soldier,  prior  to  his  marriage  to  claimant  in  Indiana,  was  the 
husband  of  one  Mary,  who  deserted  him  fourteen  years  previous 

.  to  said  marriage  to  Sarah.  Mary  was  last  heard  of  in  ^1877. 
Dissolution  of  said  marriage,  either  by  death  of  Mary  or  by 
divorce,  is  presumed.  The  marriage  to  claimant  is  therefore 
valid.  Following  the  case  of  Christena  E.  Allburn  (13  P.  D., 
333)  and  cases  therein  cited,  and  Franklin  v.  Lee  (30  Ind.  Ap., 
31). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  339 

(m)    loWA. 

See  Divorce:  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  174). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (a)    (10  P.  D.,  118;  9  P.  D.,  243). 

See  10  P.  D.,  123 ;  11  P.  D.,  74. 

See  Laws  of,  and  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  10  aud  11  P.  D. 

(n)  Kansas. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (y)   (15  P.  D.,  211). 

Marriage  and  divorce — Impediment — Kansas.     (Elizabeth  Lock-, 
wood,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  97.) 

The  deceased  soldier  married  the  appellant  by  ceremony  in  the 
State  of  Kansas  in  1875,  at  a  time  when  he  had  a  former  wife 
living,  who  subsequently  obtained  a  divorce  from  him  in  the 
State  of  Michigan  in  1877,  which  facts  were  unknown  to  the 
appellant  during  the  lifetime  of  the  soldier.  The  appellant  and 
the  soldier  lived  together  continuously  as  husband  and  wife  in 
the  State  of  Kansas,  united  in  church  membership .  as  husband 
and  wife,  joined  in  the  execution  of  deeds  and  conveyances  as 
husband  and  wife,  and  were  so  recognized  by  their  relatives, 
friends,  and  neighbors  from  and  after  the  removal  of  the  impedi- 
ment to  their  marriage  in  1877  up  to  the  date  of  the  soldier's 
death  in  1898,  a  period  of  twenty-one  years. 

Held:  That  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Kansas,  where 
the  parties  resided,  a  valid  common-law  marriage  will  be  pre- 
sumed to  have  been  contracted  by  them  after  the  removal  of  the. 
impediment  to  their  lawful  union. 

(State  r.  Walker,  3()  Kan.,  297;  State  v.  Hughes,  35  Kan.,  626; 
State  c.  McFarland,  38  Kan.,  664 ;  Matney  v.  Linn,  59  Kan.,  613 ; 
and  Shorten  o.  Judd,  60  Kan.,  73.) 

(o)   Kentucky. 

See  Legitimacy:  Nos.  4,  7  (14  P.  D.,  474,  15;  P.  D.,  380). 

See  Marriage:  No.  12  (12  P.  D.,  292)  ;  No.  15  (10  P.  D.,  157,  441; 

12  P.D.,  150,  447). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  10,  12,  13,  and  14  P.  I). 
See  also  Laws  of,  and  10  P.  D.,  158,  442 ;  12  P.  D.,  440,  lt)2 ;  13  P.  D., 
05. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Laws  of  Kentucky.     (Maggie  Merrimaii, 
widow,  12  P.  D.,  439.) 

As  claimant  had  a  husband  living  when  she  married  tlie  sol- 
dier, such  marriage  was  void,  and  as  a  common-law  marriage 
is  not  sanctioned  by  the  laws  of  Kentucky,  no  marriage  between 
claimant  and  soldier  subsequent  to  the  removal  of  the  impedi- 
ment to  their  marriage  can  be  presumed. 
Divorce — Cohabitation — Husband  and  wife — Marriage.  (Lettia 
Glover,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  497.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  the  claimant  applied  for  a  divorce 


340  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

from  the  soldier  and  a  legal  decree  was  subsequently  issued  by 
the  Mason  County  circuit  court,  in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  on 
January  13,  1883.  The  evidence  further  shows  that  she  con- 
tinued to  cohabit  and  live  with  the  soldier  as  his  wife,  in  Mays- 
ville,  Ky.,  up  to  the  date  of  his  death. 

Held:  That  as  she  was  once  legally  divorced,  and  common- 
law  marriages  are  not  valid  in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  she  is  not 
the  legal  Avidow  of  the  soldier,  and  therefore  is  not  entitled  to 
pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890.  (See  case  of  Mary 
Munsel,  9  P.  D.,  30.) 

Marriage — Evidence — Presumption  of  death — Kentucky.     (Nancy 
Nolen,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  64.) 

A  marriage  duly  and  formally  entered  into  is  presumed  to  be 
valid,  and  slight  evidence  is  held  sufficient  to  warrant  a  finding 
of  fact  that  death  of  a  prior  consort  occurred  within  a  period 
of  seven  years  prior  to  such  marriage,  when  such  fact  is  essen- 
tial to  make  it  valid. 

(p)  Louisiana. 

See  Marriage:  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  393)  ;  No.  15  (13  P.  D.,  173). 
See  Laws  of :  See  13  P.  D.,  100,  101,  103 ;    14  P.  D.,  344. 
See  Tables  and  State  Statutes  for  13,  14,  and  1.5  P.  D. 

Marriage  in  Louisiana — Evidence — Presumptions.     (Minna  Wil- 
son, widow,  11  P.  D.,  339.) 

There  being  no  proof  or  facts  warranting  the  presumption 
of  a  prior  marriage  by  the  soldier,  and  the  undisputed  evidence 
showing  that  claimant  and  soldier  lived  and  cohabited  together 
as  man  and  wife  for  eleven  years  in  the  State  of  Louisiana,  the 
law  of  that  State  would  presume  them  married,  and  the  claimant 
is  therefore  entitled  to  pension  as  the  lawful  widow  of  the 
soldier. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Laws  of  Louisiana — Gontraxit.     (Francoise 
Gabriel,  12  P.  D.,  382.) 

Under  the  law^s  of  the  State  of  Louisiana  the  claimant  is  held 
to  have  been  the  lawful  wife  of  the  soldier  from  the  year  1880  up 
to  the  time  of  his  death,  on  January  4,  1898.  About  the  year 
1880,  both  parties  being  able  to  consent  and  able  to  contract, 
mutually  agreed  to  enter  the  state  of  matrimony.  From  that 
'time  to  the  date  of  the  soldier's  death  they  lived  together  and 
cohabited  as  man  and  wife,  and  as  such  held  themselves  out  to 
the  world.  During  that  whole  period  they  were  regarded  as 
man  and  wife  by  neighbors  and  friends  among  whom  they  lived. 

Marriage — Louisiana — Good  faith — Putative   marriage.      (Peggy 
Thomas,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  98.) 

1.  Under  the  laws  of  Louisiana  a  putative  second  marriage  is 


I 


PEKSTON    AND    BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  341 

in  all  respects  and  to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  valid  marriage 
until  actually  declared  by  a  competent  court  to  be  null  and  void, 
and  if  not  so  declared  prior  to  the  death  of  one  of  the  parties 
thereto,  it  may  not  be  after  the  death  of  such  party  so  as  to  affect 
any  rights  existing  at  the  time  of  death  based  on  such  marriage. 
Therefore  claimant  having  married  the  soldier  in  good  faith, 
believing  her  former  husband  to  be  dead  (no  information  to  the 
contrary  appearing),  such  marriage  was  sufficient  to  constitute 
her  his  widow  for  pensionable  purposes. 

2.  As  claimant  is  shown  to  have  been  guilty  since  about  May 
11,  1892,  of  open  and  notorious  adulterous  cohabitation,  pen- 
sion allowable  under  her  claim  filed  September  1,  1891,  under  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890,  should  be  terminated,  and  her  claims  filed 
subsequent  to  May  11,  1892,  should  be  rejected  on  the  ground  of 
such  cohabitation. 

Marriage — Louisiana  laws — Act  June  27,  1890.     (Maggie  Davis, 
widow,  14  P.  D.,  344.) 

Claimant  and  soldier  commenced  to  live  together  by  common 
consent  about  the  year  1882,  and  were  married  by  ceremony  in 
1891. 

Held:  A  marriage  by  ceremony  is  necessary  in  the  State  of 
Louisiana  (Civil  Code  of  Louisiana,  art.  91;  Holmes  /'.  Holmes, 
6  La.,  463 ;  Powers  /\  Executors,  35  La.  An.,  630 ;  Blasini  et  al.  v. 
The  Succession,  30  La.  An.,  1368).  That  part  of  the  opinion  in 
the  case  of  Francoise  Gabriel  (12  P.  D.,  382)  which  holds  a  cere- 
mony not  to  be  essential  is  hereby  expressly  overruled. 
Marriage — Louisiana — Impediment — Civil  code — Putative  mar- 
riage.    (Martha  Alex  or  Alec,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  530.) 

Claimant  married  soldier  in  Louisiana  at  a  time  when  she  had 
a  living,  undivorced  husband.  Such  a  marriage  is  forbidden  by 
the  code  of  said  State. 

A  widow's  right  to  pension  is  based  upon  the  lawfulness  of  her 
marriage  to  soldier.  A  putative  marriage  in  Louisiana  is  not  a 
lawful  marriage  in  this  sense.  It  is  not  even  a  voidable  mar- 
riage, but  one  null  and  void  ab  initio,  albeit  under  the  code  it  may 
produce  civil  effects  as  to  the  party  acting  in  good  faith.  But 
right  to  pension  is  not  one  of  these  civil  effects. 

(Case  of  Peggy  Thomas,  13  P.  D.,  98,  overruled  in  part.) 
(q)  Maine. 

See  Maeriage:  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  272). 
Marriage — Maine — Impediment — Evidence.     (Abbie   M.    Manson, 
alleged  widow,  14  P.  D.,  349.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  claimant's  marriage  to  the  deceased 
sailor  was  invalid,  as  he  then  had  a  living  wife,  and  that  claim- 


342  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

ant  knew,  or  was  in  possession  of  facts  that  would  cause  a  reason- 
ably prudent  person  to  ascertain,  that  such  marriage  would  be 
void.  The  consequent  cohabitation  was  therefore  meretricious 
as  well  as  adulterous. 

Held:  That  in  Maine  cohabitation  under  the  form  of  mar- 
riage, meretricious  at  its  outset,  still  remains  so  after  the  removal 
of  an  existing  impediment  unless  a  new  contract  is  entered  into. 
Continued  cohabitation  will  not  afford  a  legal  presumption  of  a 
subsequent  marriage. 

(r)   Maryland. 

See  Legitimacy:  No.  2  (11  P.  D.,  278). 

See  Marriage:  No.  15  (1.3  P.  D.,  70). 

See  Laws  of;  also  Tarles  of  State  Statutes  for  0,  10,  11,  13,  and 

14  P.  D. 
See  10  P.  D.,  113,  .304,  .307,  432;    11  P.  D.,  279,  280,  281;    13  P.  D., 

ni,  52,  73 ;    14  P.  D.,  348. 

Marriage    and   divorce— Evidence.     (Rebecca    Wiley,    widow,    10 
P.  D.,  304.) 

First.  Under  the  Maryland  decisions  the  same  proof  of  cohab- 
itation, general  reputation,  and  acknowledgment  that  will  estab- 
lish a  marriage  good  at  common  law  w411  establish  the  presump- 
tion of  a  religious  ceremonial  marriage  in  that  State.  (Richard- 
son V,  Smith,  80  Md.,  89;  Redgrave  v.  Redgrave,  38  Md.,  97; 
Jackson  v.  Jackson,  80  Md.,  176;  S.  C,  82  Md.,  17;  Barnum  v. 
Barnum,  42  Md.,  251,  and  Jones  v.  Jones,  48  Md.,  391.) 

Second.  The  evidence  in  this  case  fairly  establishes  a  valid 
marriage  of  the  claimant  and  soldier  under  the  laws  of  Mary- 
land, even  assuming  the  decision  of  the  supreme  court  of  that 
State  in  the  case  of  Denison  v,  Denison  (35  Md.,  361)  to  be  a 
correct  construction  of  the  Maryland  statutes. 

Marriage — Evidence — Maryland,     (Mollie  Purnell,  widow,  10  P. 
D.,  431.) 

It  is  only  when  a  party  relies  upon  a  valid  marriage  ceremony 
that,  under  the  Maryland  decisions,  the  same  proof  of  cohabita- 
tion, general  reputation,  and  acknowledgment  which  will  estab- 
lish a  marriage  good  at  common  law  will  establish  the  presump- 
tion of  a  religious  ceremonial  marriage  in  that  State. 

Marriage — Evidence — Maryland.     (Eliza  Chase,  widow,  13  P.  D., 
49.) 

Common-law  marriages  have  not  been  and  are  not  recognized 
as  valid  in  Maryland,  but  while  there  can  not  be  a  valid  marriage 
without  a  religious  .ceremony,  such  marriage  may  be  proved 
without  the  testimony  of  witnesses  who  were  present  at  the  cere- 
mony ;  that  is,  by  general  reputation,  cohabitation,  and  acknowl- 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  343 

edgment.  When  these  exist  it  will  be  inferred  that  a  religious 
ceremony  has  taken  place,  and  this  proof  will  not  be  invalidated 
because  evidence  can  not  be  obtained  of  the  time,  place,  and 
manner  of  the  celebration  of  the  marriage.  (Richardson  v. 
Smith,  80  Md.,  1889.) 

In  this  case  it  is  shown  that  soldier  cohabitated  with  one 
Harriet  Bordley  prior  to  his  marriage  to  claimant,  such  cohabi- 
tation was  terminated  many  years  ago,  and  soldier's  friends  and 
relatives,  who  lived  but  a  short  distance  from  him,  were  ignorant 
of  any  marriage  to  the  Bordley  woman.  Cohabitation  alone, 
under  the  circumstances  of  this  case,  will  not  warrant  the  pre- 
sumption of  a  marriage  by  a  religious  ceremony  between  soldier 
and  Harriet  Bordley,  and  claimant  must  therefore  he  held  to  be 
soldier's  widow. 

Marriage — Maryland  laws — Evidence — Presumption.     (Amelia  K. 
Shanaman,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  530.) 

No  record  of  the  marriage  of  claimant  and  soldier,  nor  of  a 
license  to  marry  can  be  found,  but  claimant  swears  that  they 
were  secretly  married  in  Baltimore,  Md.,  by  a  Methodist  min- 
ister, according  to  the  Methodist  ceremonial  rites,  and  the  soldier 
in  his  lifetime  deposed  before  a  special  examiner  that  he  and 
claimant  were  married  by  a  minister  named  Smith,  in  Balti- 
more, Md.  The  evidence  shows  that  immediately  thereafter 
they  announced  to  their  family  and  friends  that  they  were  mar- 
ried, and  within  a  week  of  the  date  of  the  alleged  marriage 
soldier  and  claimant  commenced  housekeeping  and  lived  and 
cohabitated  together  as  husband  and  wife,  and  were  so  recog- 
nized by  their  relatives  and  acquaintances  from  that  time  until 
soldier's  death. 

Held:  That  under  the  decisions  of  the  Maryland  court  of 
appeals  which  hold  that  "  where  parties  live  together  ostensibly  " 
as  husband  and  wife  "  and  are  received  into  society  and  treated 
by  their  friends  and  relations  as  having  and  being  entitled  to 
that  status,  the  law  will  presume  *  *  *  that  they  have  been 
legally  married,"  claimant  is  the  widow  of  the  deceased  soldier. 

Marriage — Maryland — Evidence — Cohabitation  and  repute.     (Jo- 
hanna Hattersheim,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  464.) 

This  claim  is  based  upon  an  alleged  common-law  marriage  as 
springing  into  existence,  by  operation  of  law  wholly  by  reason 
of  a  few  hours  temporary  sojourn,  without  the  incidents  of  mar- 
ital cohabitation,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  the  parties  being 
actually  domiciled  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  where  a  common- 
law  marriage  is  not  valid. 

Held:  Marriage  as  a  status  is  established  as  of  contract.     In 


344  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

the  absence  of  direct  proof,  indirect  evidence  afforded  by  proof 
of  marital  cohabitation,  acknowledgment,  and  recognition  is 
admissible  in  proof  of  marriage.  Those  elements  do  not  con- 
stitute a  common-law  marriage,  but  merely  evince  the  fact  that 
a  mutual  exchange  of  consents  to  create  that  status  has  taken 
place. 

Where  parties  illicitly  cohabiting  in  a  State  where  a  ceremony 
is  essential  to  the  validity  of  marriage  remain  temporarily  in  a 
State  where  a  marriage  per  verba  de  prsesenti  is  lawful,  it  is 
possible  for  them  to  contract  a  common-law  marriage  therein; 
but  a  new  contract  will  not  be  presumed  merely  from  their  pres- 
ence in  said  State.  The  fact  must  be  shown  either  by  direct 
proof  or  by  evidence  of  matrimonial  cohabitation,  acknowledg- 
ment, and  recognition  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  common-law 
State.  Otherwise  the  subsequent  cohabitation  of  the  parties  in 
the  place  of  their  domicile  must  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  their 
original  relation. 

(s)  Massachusetts. 

See  Divorce:  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  434)  ;   No.  6  (12  P.  D.,  445;    14  P.  D., 

438). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  11,  12,  14,  and  15  P.  D. 
See  Laws  of,  and  11  P.  D.,  116 ;   14  P.  D.,  456. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Impediment — Massachusetts.     (Emma  C. 
Sanders,  now  Stewart,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  114.) 

Claimant  married  soldier  in  1856  and  lived  with  him  as  his 
wife  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts  until  his  second  enlistment, 
December  18,  1863.  Not  having  heard  from  her  said  husband 
since  1864  and  believing  him  to  be  dead,  she  married  one  Stewart, 
in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  in  November,  1870,  and  lived  and 
cohabited  with  him  as  his  wife,  in  said  State  (both  believing  said 
marriage  to  have  been  legal),  until  his  death,  which  occurred 
August  16,  1889.  The  soldier  died  in  the  Soldiers'  Home  in 
Chelsea,  Mass.,  December  18,  1882. 

Held:  That  under  the  laws  and  decisions  of  the  State  of  Mas- 
sachusetts claimant's  ceremonial  marriage  to  Stewart  was  void, 
and  that  she  was  the  wife  of  Sanders  until  his  death  in  1882, 
when  she  became  his  widow,  but  she  and  Stewart  having  lived 
together  as  husband  and  wife  from  the  death  of  Sanders  to  the 
death  of  Stewart,  each  desiring  to  be  and  believing  that  they 
were  husband  and  wife,  they  are  deemed  and  held  to  have  legally 
sustained  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife,  and  were  such  under 
the  laws  of  that  State  from  the  death  of  Sanders  to  the  death  of 
said  Stewart,  when  she  became  Stewart's  lawful  widow,  and 
there  being  no  pensionable  period  of  widowhood  between  the 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  345 

death  of  Sanders  and  the  time  she  became  the  wife  of  Stewart 
the  rejection  of  her  claim  for  pension  on  account  of  the  death  of 
Sanders  was  proper  and  is  affirmed. 
Marriage  in  Massachusetts — C ohahitation  and  repute — Evidence. 
(Mary  E.  Draper,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  456.) 

1.  A  common-law  marriage,  i.  e.,  a  contract  per  verba  prse- 
senti,  no  third  party  participating  as  a  magistrate  or  minister,  or 
one  believed  to  be  such  by  the  parties,  neither  of  whom  is  a 
Quaker,  is  not  a  valid  marriage  in  Massachusetts.  (Overruling 
case  of  Emma  C.  Sanders,  11  P.  D.,  114.) 

2.  General  repute  or  cohabitation  of  the  parties  as  married 
persons  is  evidence  by  which  a  marriage,  validly  contracted,  may 
be  proved. 

Marnage — Massachusetts — Impediment — Retroactive  laws.  ( Sarah 
M.  Reed,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  462.) 

The  act  of  May  29,  1895  (Massachusetts  Rev.  Laws,  1902,  ch. 
151,  sec.  0),  whereby  a  marriage  relation  begun  in  good  faith, 
although  void  by  reason  of  an  impediment,  is  validated  from 
and  after  the  removal  of  said  impediment  if  the  parties  continue 
to  cohabit  as  husband  and  wife,  in  good  faith  upon  the  part  of 
one  at  least,  will  be  applied  in  pension  cases  only  where  the  im- 
pediment was  removed  and  the  subsequent  cohabitation  took 
place  after  the  passage  of  the  act.  <^Lufkin  v.  Lufkin,  182  Mass., 
476.) 

(t)  Michigan. 

See  Divorce:  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  303). 

See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  297). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (n)    (11  P.  D.,  J)7)  ;  No.  3  (a)    (9  P.  D.,  139)  ; 

No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  220)  ;  No.  12  (12  P.  D.,  348). 
See  Laws  of,  and  10  P.  D.,  195. 
See  Tarles  of  State  Statutes  for  10,  11,  12,  and  13  P.  D. 

Marriage — E Mence — Impediment — Cohabitation.      ( Mary  Schil- 
ling, widow,  14  P.  D.,  417.) 

Claimant  was  married  to  the  deceased  soldier  in  Michigan  in 
1887.  The  evidence  shows  that  prior  to  that  time,  from  1862  to 
about  1870,  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  the  soldier  cohabited 
w^ith  one  Anna  Maria,  and  that  four  children  were  born  to  them 
during  that  period.  There  is  no  evidence  that  an  actual  mar- 
riage was  entered  into,  and  the  cohabitation  ceased  without  legal 
separation.  Both  remarried,  and  all  the  facts  and  circumstances 
indicate  that  no  contract  of  marriage  was  made.  Under  the 
facts  in  this  case  a  marriage  contract  will  not  be  presumed.  The 
soldier,  therefore,  was  competent  to  enter  into  a  contract  of  mar- 
riage at  the  date  he  married  claimant. 


346  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Marriage — Impediment — Age — Evidence — Michigan  laws.  (Jen- 
nie Atherton,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  554.) 

Claimant  married  soldier,  by  ceremony,  on  March  21,  1869, 
cohabiting  with  him  as  his  wife,  in  the  State  of  Michigan,  till 
his  death  on  March  28,  1899.  She  had  previously,  when  proba- 
bly under  age,  married  one  Townsend,  and  it  is  also  probable 
Townsend  had,  at  the  time,  a  living  undivorced  wife.  Townsend 
died  December  25,  1875. 

Held :  Under  the  statement  of  facts  a  marriage  between  claim- 
ant and  soldier  must  be  presumed.  (Barker  v.  Valentine,  125 
Mich.,  336.) 

The  opinion  in  the  case  of  Harriet  Comstock  (10  P.  D.,  220), 
so  far  as  it  conflicts  with  the  holding  in  the  case  of  Barker  v. 
Valentine,  is  hereby  expressly  overruled. 
Marriage — Michigan — Divorce — Evidence — Illicit  cohabitation — 
PresiiTYiption  of  continuous  illicit  cohabitation.  (Amanda  M. 
Coon,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  240.) 

Claimant  assumed  apparent  marital  relations  with  soldier  in 
Michigan  at  a  time  w^hen  she  was  the  w4fe  of  one  Blades.  Blades 
secured  a  divorce  from  claimant  the  year  following  her  alleged 
marriage  to  soldier,  of  which  fact  claimant  was  not  cognizant 
until  years  after  soldier's  death.  After  a  cohabitation,  desultory 
in  character,  soldier  and  claimant  separated  and  were  not  living 
together  in  any  relation  at  the  time  of  his  death  or  for  years 
prior  thereto. 

Held :  That  the  evidence  is  not  sufficient  to  rebut  the  pre- 
sumption that  the  illicit  nature  of  their  original  relation  con- 
tinued to  exist  after  the  removal  of  the  bar  to  marriage;  hence 
no  common-law  marriage  arose  between  them  and  she  is  not  his 
widow.  Distinguishing  the  case  of  Jennie  Atherton  (14  P.  D., 
554)  and  other  cognate  cases. 

(u)  Minnesota. 

See  Marriage:  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  220). 
See  Table  of  State  Statutes  for  15  P.  D. 

Marriage — Illinois — Minnesota — Presumption  of  marriage — Evi- 
dence— Division  of  pension — Act  of  March  3,  1899.  (Wright  v. 
Wright,  15  P.  D.,  236.) 

Under  the  law  of  Minnesota,  as  construed  by  the  courts  of  that 
State,  marriage  is  a  civil  contract  to  the  validity  of  which,  in 
law,  the  consent  of  parties  capable,  in  law,  of  contracting  is 
alone  essential. 

The  presumption  that  a  cohabitation  illicit  in  its  inception  re- 
mains such  in  character  during  its  continuance  is  one  of  fact  and 
not  of  law. 


I 


!» 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  347 

The  policy  of  the  law  favors  matrimony  rather  than  concubi- 
nage, and  hence  every  reasonable  presumption  should  be  allowed 
to  support  the  former  and  to  defeat  the  latter. 

Admission,  general  reputation,  and  cohabitation,  or  any  other 
circumstantial  or  presumptive  evidence  from  which  marriage 
may  be  inferred,  are  competent  under  the  statutes  of  Minnesota. 
Claimant  and  pensioner  were  ceremonially  married  in  the  State 
of  Illinois  October  11,  1874,  seventeen  days  prior  to  his  being 
divorced  from  his  former  wife,  and  resided  in  the  States  of  Min- 
nesota and  Illinois  as  husband  and  wife. 

Held:  That  under  the  laws  of  Illinois  and  Minnesota  a  valid 
marriage   between   claimant   and   pensioner,   subsequent   to   the 
removal  of  the  legal  impediment  to  their  marriage,  is  established 
by  proof  of  their  consent,  cohabitation,  and  general  reputation. 
(v)  Mississippi. 

See  Marriage:    No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  393)  ;    No.  T  (9  P.  D.,  127)  ;    No.  5 

(1.5  P.  D.,  11). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  10,  13,  14,  and  15  P.  D. 
See  Laws  of.  and  10  P.  D.,  10() ;   13  P.  D.,  58 ;   14  P.  D.,  477. 

Marriage  and  divorce  —  Impediment.  (Minerva  Brown,  widow, 
11  P.  D.,  266.) 

It  being'  shown  that  at  the  time  of  this  claimant's  formal  mar- 
riage in  1876  to  the  soldier  herein  she  had  a  former  husband  liv- 
ing and  undivorced  from  her,  or  she  from  him,  such  marriage 
was  invalid  and  void;  but  as  she  and  soldier  then  married  in 
entire  good  faith,  believing  in  her  legal  competency  to  marry,  and 
cohabited  thereafter  continuously  for  twenty-one  years,  eleven  of 
which  were  subsequent  to  the  death  of  her  former  husband,  each 
continuing  until  the  soldier's  death  in  the  belief  of  their  legal 

,  union,  holding  themselves  out  as  man  and  wife,  and  being 
generally  accepted  as  such,  it  is  held  that  there  was,  under  the 
laws  of  the  State  of  Mississippi,  where  she  and  soldier  resided 
at  the  time  of  his  death,  a  lawful  and  valid  marriage  between 
them  subsequent  to  the  death  of  said  former  husband,  and  that 
she  is,  therefore,  the  soldier's  lawful  widow. 

Marriage  and  Divorce — Mississippi — Impediment.  (Bettie  Ogden, 
alleged  widow,  13  P.  D.,  57.) 

Prior  to  soldier's  cohabitation  with  the  claimant,  and  prior  to 
and  at  the  time  of  the  ratification  of  the  constitution  of  Missis- 
sippi, December  1,  1869,  he  was  living  in  the  relation  of  husband 
and  wife  with  one  Amanda,  who  was  still  living  at  the  time  of 
soldier's  death. 

Held:  That  under  the  constitution  of  Mississippi  Amanda  was 
soldier's  legal  wife,  and  his  cohabitation  with  claimant  unlawful, 
and  she  is  not  his  legal  widow. 


348  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Marriage — Mississippi  laws — Cohabitation.  (Amanda  Taylor,  now 
Robinson,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  476.) 

Widow  was  formally  married  to  soldier  in  1870  in  Mississippi. 
Prior  to  that  date  she  cohabited  for  some  time  with  one  Shaw, 
with  whom  she  was  living  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  con- 
stitution of  that  State,  December  1,  1869.  The  evidence  does  not 
show  a  matrimonial  intention  characterizing  her  cohabitation 
with  said  Shaw. 

Held:  That  the  effect  of  article  12,  section  22,  of  said  consti- 
tution was  not  to  force  the  marital  estate  upon  those  not  intend- 
ing it,  albeit  they  were  cohabitating  like  husband  and  wife  on  the 
date  of  its  adoption.  Her  relations  with  Shaw  not  being  matri- 
monial, she  had  full  capacity  to  contract  the  marriage  with 
soldier,  and  is  therefore  his  w  idow. 

(w)  Missouri. 

See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  13  (15  P.  D.,  240). 

See  Divorce:  No.  2  (1.3  P.  D.,  68)  ;  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  40.^)). 

See  Legitimacy:  No.  0  (13  P.  D.,  414). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2(kk)  (10  P.  D.,  .328)  ;  No.  3(a)  (10  P.  D.,  294)  ; 
(12  P.  D.,  106)  ;  No.  12  (9  P.  D.,  243;  14  P.  D.,  442)  ;  No.  13  (14 
P.  D.,  497)  ;    No.  15  (10  P.  D.,  362;    14  P.  D.,  491). 

See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  9,  10,  11,  14,  and  15,  P.  D. 

See  Laws  of,  and  10  P.  D.,  30>4 ;  14  P.  I).,  491. 

Marriage  —  Evidence  —  Impediment  —  Presumption.  ( Catherine 
Jacobs,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  59.) 

Claimant  and  soldier  continued  to  live  and  cohabit  together  as 
husband  and  wife  for  ten  years  after  the  death  of  his  first  wife 
and  up  to  the  time  of  his  death,  during  which  time  and  for 
fifteen  years  prior  thereto  they  w^ere  generally  reputed  and  ac- 
knowledged to  be  husband  and  wife. 

Held :  That  under  the  laws  of  Missouri  a  contract  of  marriage 
between  the  parties  subsequent  to  the  death  of  soldier's  first  wife 
may  be  presumed,  and  hereby  is  presumed,  and  appellant  is  the 
lawful  widow  of  soldier. 
Marriage — Divorce — Evidence — Cohahitation  and  repute.  (Eliza 
A.  Spradlin,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  86.) 

Claimant  and  soldier  w^ere  ceremonially  married  in  1879.  In 
1880  she  obtained  a  divorce  from  him.  Shortly  thereafter  they 
resumed  their  former  relations  in  the  State  of  Missouri,  no  cere- 
monial marriage  again  being  performed.  The  case  is  remanded 
for  further  special  examination  to  secure  as  evidence  of  a  com- 
mon-law marriage  the  general  repute,  etc.,  of  the  parties. 

(x)  Montana. 
No  case. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  349 

(y)   Nebraska. 

Marriage — Kansas — Nebraska — Impediment — Divorce — Fraud — 
Evidence — Good  faith — Legitimacy.  (Cressie  L.  Anderson, 
alleged  minor,  15  P.  D.,  211.) 

(1)  Soldier  and  the  mother  of  the  claimant,  Mary,  were  mar- 
ried in  Kansas  on  October  14,  1893.  He  then  had  a  wife,  Lydia, 
living  in  Nebraska,  from  whom  he  obtained  a  divorce  in  Kansas 
on  November  16,  1893.  No  subsequent  ceremonial  marriage  was 
performed.  Soldier  died  in  Nebraska,  where  right  to  pension 
consequently  accrued.  Lydia  brought  suit  in  a  Nebraska  court, 
after  soldier's  death,  to  which  Mary  was  made  a  party,  although 
she  did  not  appear  and  defend  her  title  to  recognition  as  the 
widow  of  the  soldier.  The  Nebraska  court  decided  that  the 
divorce  obtained  in  Kansas  was  fraudulent  and  void,  holding 
Lydia  to  be  the  widow  of  the  soldier.  According  to  the  law  of 
the  place  where  right  to  pension  accrued,  claimant  has  no  title 
to  pension. 

(2)  As  soldier  had  no  capacity  to  contract  marriage  with  Mary, 
Lydia  being  still  his  wife,  alive  and  undivorced,  his  relations 
with  Mary  were  illicit  in  their  inception.  Even  if  said  divorce 
is  valid  in  Kansas,  no  common-law  marriage  in  said  State,  sub- 
sequent to  said  suppositive  removal  of  the  impediment,  can  be 
presumed,  as  the  element  of  good  faith  on  the  part  of  the  soldier 
is  disproved  by  the  evidence.  Claimant,  therefore,  has  no  title 
according  to  the  law  of  the  place  where  the  alleged  marriage  took 
place. 

[yz)   Neyada. 

No  case. 

\z)  New  Hampshire. 

See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  12,  13,  and  15  P.  D. 
See  Laws  of,  and  12  P.  D.,  440;   13  P.  D.,  215. 

Marriage — New  Hampshire — Evidence,  (Clara  M.  Rumrill, 
widow,  13  P.  D.,  213.) 

A  ceremonial  marriage  is  not  necessary  in  New  Hampshire. 
Where  parties  have  cohabited  and  have  acknowledged  them- 
selves as  husband  and  wife  and  are  generally  reputed  to  be  such 
for  the  period  of  three  years  and  until  the  death  of  either  party, 
they  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been  lawfully  married. 

In  the  case  on  appeal  the  decedent's  acknowledgment  of 
claimant  as  his  wife  was  qualified,  and  they  were  not  generally 
reputed  to  be  husband  and  wife,  nor  was  she  regarded  as  his 
widow  by  the  probate  court  for  the  county  Avithin  which  the 
parties  resided.     Not  having  been  regarded  as  soldier's  widow 


350  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

by  a  court  of  competent  authority  in  New  Hampshire,  she  can 
not  be  regarded  as  his  widow  for  pension  purposes. 
Marriage — New   Hampshire — Presumption   of   death.     (Mary   F. 
Collins,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  258.) 

Claimant  married  one  Mordaiint  in  New  Hampshire  in  1871. 
He  disappeared  the  day  subsequent  to  said  marriage  and  has 
never  since  been  heard  of.  Soldier  and  claimant  were  ceremo- 
nially married  in  said  State  in  1890. 

Held:  That  the  presumption  of  the  innocency  of  the  parties  to 
the  second  marriage  rebuts  the  presumption  of  the  duration  of 
Mordaunt's  life  beyond  the  term  of  seven  years  from  his  disap- 
pearance. The  second  marriage  was  therefore  valid  and  claim- 
ant is  the  widow  of  the  soldier. 

(aa)  New  Jersey. 

See  Table  of  State  Statutes  for  15  P.  D. 

Marriage — Evidence — Laws  of  New  Jersey.     (Martha  Arose,  as 
widow,  13  P.  D.,  403). 

(1)  Where  an  actual  marriage  is  shown,  whether  legal  or 
illegal,  the  subsequent  cohabitation  of  the  parties  and  their  repu- 
tation as  husband  and  wife  must  necessarily  be  understood  as 
having  had  their  origin  in  such  marriage  and  can  not  be  treated 
as  presumptive  evidence  of  a  second  marriage  at  a  later  date. 
(Voorhees  v.  Voorhees,  46  N.  J.  Eq.,  411 ;  Collins  v.  Voorhees,  47 
N.  J.  Eq.,  555.) 

(2)  Where  parties  have  intended  marriage,  not  adultery,  being 
ignorant  of  an  existing  impediment,  all  that  is  to  be  established 
by  cohabitation,  apparently  matrimonial,  after  the  removal  of  the 
impediment,  is  the  execution  of  the  original  purpose  of  the  par- 
ties. In  that  case  the  marriage  relation  is  established  from  the 
removal  of  the  impediment.  But  the  matrimonial  intention  of 
the  parties  must  be  unmistakably  manifest,  and  it  must  defi- 
nitely appear  that  in  fact  they  were  honestly  ignorant  of  the 
existence  of  the  impediment,  their  belief  being  founded  upon 
apparently  good  reason. 

(bb)  New  York. 

See  Decree  of  Nullity:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  238)  ;  No.  6  (15  P.  D.,  227). 

See  Divorce:  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  303;  14  P.  D.,  173). 

See  Legitimacy:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  199). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (f)    (15  P.  D.,  290)  ;    No.  12  (12  P.  D.,  32). 

See  Laws  of,  and  10  P.  D.,  241.  242,  243,  389 :    11  P.  D.,  214 ;    12  P.  D., 

311,  340,  514 ;    13  P.  D.,  158 ;    14  P.  D..  20,  177,  366. 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  9,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14.  and  15  P.  D. 

Marriage     -Consanguinity  —  Infants.     (Abbie     Salmon,     alleged 
widow,  10  P.  D.,  389.) 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  351 

A  marriage  between  an  uncle  and  his  niece  is  valid  in  the  State 
of  New  York. 

The  marriage  in  the  State  of  New  York  of  a  female  under  13 
years  of  age  is  valid,  though  voidable ;  but  can  not  be  avoided  if 
she  cohabits  with  her  husband  after  she  becomes  of  the  age  of 
legal  consent. 

Marriage — Evidence — Presumption  of  death — New  York  laws. 
(Annie  Notman,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  212.) 

Appellant  was  married  to  one  David  King  in  1852,  in  Scotland. 
Between  1855  and  1856  said  King  came  to  the  United  States, 
leaving  his  wife  in  Scotland ;  thereafter  he  sent  for  her,  and  in 
July,  1857,  she  joined  him  at  Cohoes,  N.  Y.,  where  they  lived  as 
man  and  wife  until  October  of  that  year,  when  on  account  of  the 
closing  of  the  mill  in  which  he  was  employed  he  left  home  for  the 
purpose  of  procuring  w^ork  and  has  never  been  seen  or  heard  from 
since  by  appellant.  In  December,  1865,  claimant  married  James 
Notman,  who  died  May  26,  1892,  leaving  her  without  property 
or  means  of  support. 

Held:  That  claimant  was  the  legal  widow  of  James  Notman 
under  the  laws  of  New  York,  and  that  her  claim  as  such  is  suffi- 
ciently proved  under  the  law  as  stated  in  the  case  of  Davie  v, 
Briggs  (97  U.  S.,  628),  and  that  under  the  evidence  she  is  en- 
titled to  pension  as  the  widow  of  said  James  Notman  under  the 
act  of  June  27, 1890. 

The  cases  of  Lavanchia  L.  Salisbury  (7  P.  D.,  247)  and  Spicer 
V.  Spicer  (16  Abb.  Prac.  Repts.)  referred  to  and  distinguished. 

Marriage — New  York  laws — Impediment — Presumption  of  death. 
(Ann  Green,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  306.) 

The  claimant's  marriage  to  the  soldier  is  shown  to  have  been 
valid  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  New  York,  where  celebrated, 
her  former  husband  being  reported  and  generally  believed  to 
have  died  eleven  years  before,  and  who  has  not  been  heard  of 
since  his  reported  death,  twenty-six  years  ago  at  this  time. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Remarriage — Presumption  of  death — Im- 
pediment.    (Mary  N.  Lester,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  310.) 

Appellant's  marriage  to  the  soldier  at  a  time  when  she  had  a 
husband  living  and  undivorced,  she  not  having  exercised  ordi- 
nary diligence  in  informing  herself  as  to  the  whereabouts  of 
such  first  husband  when  she  contracted  a  second  marriage,  such 
second  marriage  was  not  entered  into  in  good  faith,  in  the  honest 
belief  that  her  first  husband  was  dead,  and  can  not  be  upheld 
under  section  6,  chapter  8,  article  1,  of  the  New  York  Statutes, 
volume  3,  and  confers  on  her  no  right  of  pension  as  widow  of 
said  second  husband. 


852  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Act  of  June  27^  1890 — Laws  of  New  York. 
(Adaline  Tripp,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  157.) 

Soldier,  prior  to  his  marriage  to  claimant  in  1866,  had  been 
married  to  one  Charlotte,  who  secured  a  divorce  from  him  in 
1857  in  the  State  of  New  York,  where  they  were  domiciled,  on 
the  ground  of  adultery,  wherein  the  decree  provided,  according 
to  the  laws  of  that  State,  that  the  plaintiff  might  marry  again, 
but  that  it  should  be  unlawful  for  the  defendant  to  marry  daring 
the  life  of  the  plaintiff,  Charlotte,  who  died  January  6,  1895. 
Claimant,  therefore,  could  not  have  contracted  a  legal  marriage 
with  soldier  prior  to  the  death  of  Charlotte,  January  6,  1895 ;  and 
she  has,  therefore,  no  pensionable  status  vuider  the  third  section  of 
the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  which  provides  that  a  widow  must 
have  married  soldier  prior  to  the  passage  of  said  act  to  be  pen- 
sionable. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Evidence — Impediment — New  York  laws. 
(Anna  E.  Cummings,  as  widow,  14  P.  D.,  365.) 

The  evidence  fails  to  show  the  claimant's  marriage  to  the  sol- 
dier, contracted  while  she  had  a  former  husband  living  and  undi- 
vorced,  was  contracted  by  her  in  entire  good  faith  as  to  her  for- 
mer husband,  as  required  by  the  statute  and  decisions  of  the 
courts  of  New  York,  and  such  marraige  was,  therefore,  invalid 
and  void,  and  she  is  not  the  soldier's  widow. 

Marriage  —  New  York  —  Evidence  —  Impediment  —  Good  faith. 
(Martha  E.  A.  Witz,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  208.) 

Claimant  married  soldier  in  South  Carolina  under  the  belief 
that  her  first  husband,  Astle,  was  dead,  when  in  fact  he  did  not 
die  until  1875.  Claimant  and  soldier  lived  together  as  husband 
and  wife  in  the  State  of  New  York  from  1875  till  his  death,  in 
1883.  The  evidence  shows  that  the  parties  were  married  in  good 
faith,  lived  in  the  matrimonial  relation,  were  commonly  regarded 
as  married,  and  he  left  a  will  bequeathing  his  property  to  her  as 
"  his  wife."  The  evidence  is  sufficient  to  warrant  the  finding  of 
a  common-law  marriage,  arising  some  time  prior  to  his  death, 
in  New  York,  where  the  right  to  pension  accrued.  Following 
Fordham  v.  Gouverneur  Village  (39  N.  Y.  Supp.,  396),  and  dis- 
tinguishing the  case  of  Caroline  Wagner  (12  P.  D.,  134). 

Marriage — Divorce — New  York — Remarriage — Impediment — Evi- 
dence—Presumption of  marriage.  (Ruth  B.  Baldwin,  widow, 
15  P.  D.,  413.) 

Appellant  assumed  marriage  relations  with  soldier,  who  had 
been  married  and  divorced,  at  a  time  when  he  was  prohibited  by 
the  decree  of  divorce  from  marrying  again  in  the  State  of  New 


k 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  358 

York  during  the  lifetime  of  his  first  wife.  After  a  cohabitation 
of  many  years,  six  of  which  were  subsequent  to  the  death  of  his 
first  wife,  soldier  died.  Their  relationship,  during  these  years, 
was  marked  by  the  incidents  of  marriage — recognition,  etc. 

Held:  The  evidence  is  sufficient  to  warrant  the  finding  of  a 
common-law  marriage  after  the  removal  of  the  impediment. 

Where  the  original  relation  of  the  parties  is  merely  illicit, 
but  not  morally  reprehensible,  as  a  general  proposition  in  New 
York,  continued  cohabitation  after  the  removal  of  the  impedi- 
ment to  lawful  marriage,  coupled  with  acknowledgment  and 
general  marital  repute,  is  sufficient  to  warrant  a  finding  of  a  new 
contract  of  marriage  good  at  common  law  ;  and  this,  following 
Hynes  v.  McDermott  (91.  N.  Y.,  451)  and  cases  therein  cited, 
without  regard  to  actual  knowledge  of  the  removal  of  the  impedi- 
ment. 

When  the  original  relation  was  not  merely  illicit  but  meretri- 
cious, the  presumption  commonly  attaching,  that  said  meretri- 
cious intention  continues  to  exist,  is  to  be  weighed  with  the 
presumption  arising  from  apparent  matrimonial  cohabitation 
after  the  removal  of  the  impediment,  and  the  question  of  a  valid 
marriage  is  determinable  by  the  weight  to  which  either  of  the 
adverse  presumptions  is  entitled  in  view  of  the  facts  in  evidence 
in  the  individual  case. 

The  question  of  remarriage,  after  the  removal  of  the  impedi- 
ment, is  always  one  for  the  jury  in  New  York  cases.  No  arbi- 
trary presumption  attaches  to  any  class  of  facts.  Each  case  is 
determinable  by  the  equities  presented,  a  generous  rule  as  to  the 
indulgence  of  presumptions  being  applied. 

cc)   North  Carolina. 

See  Laws  of,  on,  12  P.  D.,  288. 

See  Table  of  State  Statutes  for  12  P.  D. 

Marriage — Slaves  under  laws  of  North  Carolina — Act  June  27^ 
1890.     (Caroline  Eborn,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  287.) 

The  evidence  in  the  case  shows  that  claimant  had  an  undi- 
vorced  husband  when  she  married  the  soldier,  and  her  marriage 
to  the  latter,  under  the  law  of  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  was 
void. 

(dd)   North  Dakota. 

No  case  reported. 

(ee)   Ohio. 

See  Decree  of  Nullity  :  No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  271)  ;  No.  7  (15  P.  D.,  286). 
See  Divorce:  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  236). 

13070—06 23 


354  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

See  Division'  of  Pension  :  No.  12  (13  P.  D.,  120)  ;  No.  20  (15  P.  D., 

143). 
See  Legitimacy:  No.  8  (13  P.  D.,  541;  14  P.  D.,  428). 
See  Marriage:  No.  0  (15  P.  D.,  308). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  12,  13,  and  15  P.  D. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Impediment.     (Fredricka  Kent,  widow,  10 
P.  D.,  211.) 

Soldier  married  claimant  by  ceremony  in  1864,  when  he  had  a 
former  wife  living,  who  was  divorced  from  him  twenty-three 
months  thereafter.  Claimant  and  soldier  lived  together  as  hus- 
band and  wife,  and  were  so  recognized  by  their  neighbors  and 
relatives,  for  twenty-six  years  after  the  removal  of  the  impedi- 
ment to  their  marriage  and  up  to  the  date  of  soldier's  death. 

Held:  That  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  where  the 
parties  resided,  a  common-law  marriage  contracted  after  the 
removal  of  said  impediment  will  be  presumed.  (Bremer  v. 
Briggs,  32  Ohio  St.,  378,  and  Schwartz  v.  State,  33  Ohio  C.  C. 
Eep.,  62.) 
Marmage — Ohio — Age  of  consent.  (Frances  A.  Terrell,  widow, 
15  P.  D.,  225.) 

Claimant  married  one  Harper  in  1862,  in  the  State  of  Ohio, 
when  she  was  but  17  years  of  age.  She  deserted  him,  and,  with- 
out any  divorce  having  been  obtained,  married  the  soldier  in  the 
State  of  Ohio  in  December,  1872.  Harper  was  known  to  have 
been  alive  as  late  as  1890. 

Claimant's  marriage  to  Harper  when  the  age  of  consent  for 
marriageable  purposes  was  14  years  for  females  in  the  State 
(Ohio)  in  which  this  issue  arises,  such  marriage  was  valid  in 
all  respects,  and  the  marriage  between  claimant  and  soldier  was 
void  ab  initio. 

(ff)   Oregon. 

See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  11  P.  D. 
See  Laws  of,  and  11  P.  D.,  428. 

Marriage  —  Evidence  —  Presumptions  —  Cohabitation  and  repute. 
(Sarah  E.  Manwell,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  427.) 

Under  the  civil  code  of  Oregon,  as  construed  in  the  case  of 
Murray  v.  Murray  (6  Or.,  26),  "when  it  is  shown  by  evidence 
that  a  man  and  woman  are  living  together  and  cohabiting  as 
man  and  wife,  and  are  in  the  community  reputed  and  received  in 
society  as  such,  it  is  sufficient  prima  facie  to  prove  the  marriage 
in  a  civil  action  or  proceeding." 

(gg)   Pennsylvania. 

See  Division  of  Pensions:    No.  12  (13  P.  D.,  297). 
See  Marriage:    No.  3  (a)    (12  P.  D.,  106)  ;    No.  4  (9  P.  D.,  497;    12 
P.  D.,  32G)  ;   No.  12  (10  P.  D.,  162). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  355 

Maii'iage  and  divorce  in  Pennsylvania,  (Rebecca  C.  Howell, 
alleged  widow,  12  P.  D.,  300.) 

At  the  time  appellant  married  the  soldier  in  1868,  in  the  State 
of  Pennsylvania,  he  had  an  undivorced  wife  living,  who  died  in 
1888.  She  lived  with  the  soldier  in  the  relation  of  husband  and 
wife  from  date  of  marriage  to  date  of  his  death,  July  16,  1890. 
Held:  That  under  the  decision  of  the  Pennsylvania  courts 
their  continued  cohabitation  after  the  removal  of  the  impediment 
to  their  legal  marriage,  without  evidence  of  a  new  contract,  is 
not  sufficient  to  raise  the  presumption  of  a  marriage  after  the 
removal  of  such  impediment. 

(See  cases  of  Sarah  C.  Hayden,  8  P.  D.,  364;  Hunt  v.  Cleve- 
land, 6  Pa.  C.  C,  592,  and  Hautz  v.  Sealey,  6  Binn.,  405.) 

Marriage  —  Pennsylvania  —  Impediment  —  Evidence.  (Annie  E. 
Laraway,  as  widow,  14  P.  D.,  212.) 

At  the  time  of  the  marriage  of  claimant  to  soldier  said  soldier 
had  a  wife  living  from  whom  he  had  not  been  divorced.  Said 
marriage  was  therefore  void  and  cohabitation  thereunder  illicit. 
Marriage  will  not  be  presumed  from  cohabitation,  when  the  rela- 
tion between  the  parties  was  of  illicit  origin,  in  the  absence  of 
proof  of  a  subsequent  actual  marriage. 

Marriage  —  Pennsylvania  —  Evidence  —  Presumption  of  death, 
(Caroline  Kraft,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  495.) 

Claimant  was  married  to  one  Moringer  in  the  year  1858.  He 
deserted  her  a  few  months  later  and  has  not  been  heard  from 
since.  She  married  her  soldier  husband,  Frank  Kraft,  in  1861 
and  again  in  1861. 

Held:  (1)  That  presuniption  of  death  does  not  attach  in  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania,  where  all  of  said  marriages  were  con- 
tracted and  claimant  has  since  resided,  until  the  expiration  of 
the  full  seven-year  period.     (Keel's  Estate,  30  W.  N.  C,  419.) 

(2)  That  a  marriage  will  not  be  presumed  after  said  presump- 
lion  arises  from  the  continuance  of  a  cohabitation  of  illicit  origin. 
(Annie  E.  Laraway,  14  P.  D.,  212.) 

[^(hh)  Rhode  Island. 

Marriage  —  Rhode  Island  —  Impediment.  (Mary  E.  Williams, 
widow,  15  P.  D.,  543.) 

The  deceased  sailor,  at  the  date  of  his  alleged  marriage  to 
claimant  in  the  State  of  Rhode  Island,  had  an  undivorced  wife, 
who  survives  him. 

Under  the  laws  of  said  State,  his  domicile  to  death,  his  mar- 
riage with  claimant  was  "  absolutely  void."  (General  Laws  of 
R.  I.,  1896,  chap.  191,  sec.  5.) 


356  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

(ii)   South  Carolina. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (bb)    (15  P.  D.,  208)  ;  No.  15  (14  P.  D.,  537). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  14  and  15  P.  D. 
See  Laws  of. 

Marriage — South  Carolina — Colored  persons — Act  of  June  27^ 
1890.  (Rosanna  Parkman,  alleged  widow,  15  P.  D.,  411.) 
.  Soldier  and  one  Lavinia,  who  had  previously  been  slaves,  but 
were  then  under  the  protection  of  the  military  authorities  of 
the  United  States  and  no  longer  slaves,  were  married  by  a  cere- 
mony in  South  Carolina  a  short  time  after  soldier's  enlistment 
in  the  United  States  Army,  and  they  lived  together  as  husband 
and  wife  during  and  after  soldier's  military  service. 

Subsequently,  about  the  year  1870,  soldier  married  the  claim- 
ant, when  he  had  a  former  living  imdivorced  wife,  which  said 
marriage  was  null  and  void  and  of  no  effect,  and  claimant  can 
not  be  held  to  be  his  widow. 
Marriage — South  Carolina — Arkansas — Evidence — Presumption — 
Second  marriage — Impediment — Divorce.  (Alfordine  Grove, 
widow,  15  P.  D.,  540.) 

Marriage  in  South  Carolina  is  a  civil  contract,  whereby  the 
parties  take  each  other  in  presenti  for  husband  and  wife,  with- 
out any  particular  formality;  but  proof  that  two  persons  lived 
together  as  husband  and  wife  is  conclusive  of  their  marriage 
if  not  rebutted.  But  where  a  party  has  contracted  a  valid  mar- 
riage and  then  married  a  second  time,  cohabitation  and  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  marriage  relation  between  the  parties  to  the 
second  marriage  is  not  evidence  of  its  validity. 

A  second  marriage  during  the  subsistence  of  a  first  is  void, 
except  in  the  case  of  a  person  whose  husband  or  wife  has 
absented  himself  or  herself  for  a  period  of  seven  years,  the  one 
not  knowing  the  other  to  be  living  during  that  time. 

The  courts  of  that  State  have  no  authority  to  decree  divorce, 
and  never  have  had,  except  from  1872  to  1878,  and  then  only  for 
one  cause — adultery. 

(jj)   South  Dakota. 

No  case. 

(kk)  Tennessee. 

See  Legitimacy:  No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  294). 
See  Marriage:  No.  15  (13  P.  D.,  140;   15  P.  D.,  30). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  12,  13,  and  15  P.  D. 
See  Laws  of,  and  12  P.  D.,  469,  514,  515 ;  13  P.  D.,  142. 

Marriage — Tennessee — Missouri — Evidence.     (Angeline  Adamson, 
alleged  widow,  10  P.  D.,  328.) 

First.  The  evidence  in  this  case  fails  to  shoAV  any  ceremonial 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  357 

or  common-law  marriage  between  the  claimant  and  soldier,  but 
shows  that  their  relation  was  illicit  in  its  inception,  and  con- 
tinned  unchanged  until  her  desertion  of  soldier  in  1885,  eight 
years  prior  to  his  death. 

Second.  A  relation  illicit  in  its  origin  is  presumed  to  so  con- 
tinue until  a  changed  relation  is  shown,  and  continuous  cohabita- 
tion of  the  parties  after  the  removal  of  the  legal  impediment  to 
marriage  is  not  evidence  of  a  change  from  an  illicit  to  a  matri- 
monial status  under  the  laws  of  Tennessee  or  Missouri. 

Marriage — Laics  of  Tennessee — Age  of  consent.  (Mahala  Viles, 
widow,  12  P.  D.,  468.) 

1.  Claimant,  when  she  was  about  15  years  of  age,  was  married 
to  one  Wyrick,  Avho  was  about  18  years  of  age,  by  a  justice  of  the 
peace  in  Tennessee,  without  having  first  produced  a  license  so  to 
do.  As  the  age  of  consent  to  marriage  in  said  State  was  14  years 
in  males  and  12  years  in  females,  said  marriage  was  valid  and 
her  marriage  to  soldier  while  said  Wyrick  was  living  and  un- 
divorced  was  void,  notwithstanding  said  Wyrick  had  married 
another  woman  prior  to  claimant's  said  marriage. 

2.  Common-law  marriages  are  legal  in  Tennessee. 

Marriage  and  divorce  —  Evidence  —  Laws  of  Tennessee.  (Annie 
Huston,  alias  Richardson,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  514.) 

The  claimant  was  the  legal  wife  of  Dennis  Dean  on  and  after 
May  26,  1866.  She  thereafter,  on  May  30,  1876,  attempted  to 
marry  the  above-named  soldier.  Dean  lived  until  the  year  1893, 
claimant's  second  husband  living  until  December  18,  1892.  Dean 
and  claimant  were  never  divorced. 

Held:  Claimant  is  not  the  widow  of  the  soldier  in  question. 
(McKeynolds  v.  The  State  of  Tennessee,  5  Cold.,  20,  and  Mar- 
garet Gilbert,  8  P.  D.,  249.) 

Claimant  will  be  presumed  to  have  known  Dean  to  have  been 
alive  when  she  contracted  her  second  marriage  under  the  rule 
made  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Oliver  -v.  Piatt  (3 
Howard,  333). 

(11)   Texas. 

See  Marriage:  No.  3  (b)    (12  P.  D.,  417)  ;  No.  7  (9  P.  D.,  209)  ;  No. 

•15  (13  P.  D.,  129)  ;    (14  P.  D.,  156). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  9  and  14,  P.  D. 
See  Laws  of,  and  9  P.  D.,  200 ;   13  P.  D.,  142 ;   14  P.  D.,  157. 

Marriage — Texas — Evidence — Presumption — Act  of  June  27^  1890. 
(Emma  W.  Messenger,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  399.) 

In  the  State  of  Texas  a  marriage  duly  celebrated  under  license 
is  presumed  legal  and  valid,  and  such  presumption  outweighs 


358  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

that  of  the  continuance  of  life  of  a  former  husband  or  wife,  or 
that  of  the  continuance  of  a  former  marriage,  and  death  or 
divorce  from  such  former  marriage  prior  to  such  subsequent  mar- 
riage should  be  presumed  in  the  absence  of  testimony  clearly 
showing  that  such  former  husband  or  wife  was  alive,  and  not 
divorced  at  the  time  of  such  second  marriage. 

(mm)   Utah. 

See  Divorce:  No.  9  (14  P.  D.,  99). 

(nn)   Vermont. 
No  case. 

(oo)   Virginia. 

See  Marriage:  No.  4  (9  P.  D.,  5)  ;  No.  15  (11  P.  D.,  167,  443). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  9,  11,  13,  and  14  P.  D. 
See  Laws  of,  and  9  P.  D.,  0 ;  11  P.  D.,  1G7,  445 ;  13  P.  D.,  146,  147 ; 
14  P.  D.,  447. 

Marriage — Laws  of  Virginia — Cohabitation — Evidence.  (Eliza 
A.  Stewart,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  146.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  the  claimant  commenced  to  cohabit 
with  Dabney  Smith  in  the  State  of  Virginia  in  the  year  18()5 
as  his  Avife,  and  so  continued  up  to  1870,  at  least  two  children 
being  born  to  them,  one  of  whom  is  now  living.  Claimant 
attempted  to  marry  the  soldier  in  1873,  a  ceremony  being  per- 
formed, and  she  lived  with  him  until  his  death  in  1900.  A  bona 
fide  matrimonial  intent  on  the  part  of  the  claimant  and  Dabney 
Smith  is  shown,  and  is  reasonably  inferable  from  the  facts. 

Held:  The  act  of  the  legislature  of  the  State  of  Virginia  of 
February  27,  1806,  made  the  claimant  and  Dabney  Smith  hus- 
band and  wife;  and  her  attempted  marriage  with  the  soldier 
was,  therefore,  void  ab  initio,  death  or  divorce  not  having  been 
shown. 

Marriage— Cohabitation.,  act  of  June  27^  1890.  (Peggy  Churn, 
alleged  widow,  14  P.  D.,  445.) 

The  appellant  and  soldier  began  living  together  in  the  State 
of  Virginia  some  time  during  the  year  1867,  where  they  contin- 
ued to  live  and  cohabit  as  husband  and  wife  until  the  date  of  his 
death,  which  occurred  August  4,  1890,  but  were  never  married 
under  a  license  or  by  any  ceremony. 

Held:  That,  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  where  a 
common-law  marriage  is  not  valid,  claimant  and  soldier  were 
never  lawfully  married,  and,  therefore,  she  is  not  his  legal  wddow 
and  has  no  pensionable  status  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  859 

Marriage  and  divorce — Impediment.  (Indiana  Christie,  alleged 
widow,  10  P.  D.,  15.) 

A  marriage  solemnized  in  the  State  of  Virginia,  when  either 
of  the  parties  had  been  previously  married,  said  first  marriage 
never  having  been  dissolved,  is  void  from  inception.  It  neces- 
sarily follows  that  when  the  impediment  is  removed  a  new  rela- 
tion must  be  shown  to  have  been  entered  into ;  for  a  continuance 
of  cohabitation  is  but  a  continuance  of  an  illicit  relation  upon 
which  a  common-law  marriage  can  not  be  based.  (Stones  v. 
Keeling,  5  Call.,  143,  and  Herbert  v.  Hile's  Admr.,  90  Va.,  390.) 

(pp)  Washington. 

No  case. 

qq)   West  Virginia. 

See  Marriage:   No.  9  (15  P.  D.,  308). 
See  Table  of  State  Statutes  for  15  P.  D. 

Marriage — West  Virginia — Act  August  7,  1882.  (Mazilla  Lester, 
as  widow,  14  P.  D.,  38.) 

Claimant  married  soldier  by  ceremony  while  he  had  a  living 
and  undivorced  wife.  A  divorce  was  obtained  from  soldier  by 
the  first  wife  three  months  after  he  married  claimant.  No 
further  marriage  took  place  between  soldier  and  claimant  after 
the  impediment  was  removed. 

Held:  Claimant  is  not  the  widow  of  soldier.  Common-law 
marriages  are  invalid  in  the  State  of  West  Virginia  if  contracted 
in  said  State.     (Beverlin  v.  Beverlin,  29  W.  Va.,  723.) 

Marriage — West  Virginia — Voidable  marriage.  (Sarinda  Davis, 
widow,  15  P.  D.,  447.) 

Claimant  ceremonially  married  soldier  in  West  Virginia  in 
1872,  when  her  first  husband  was  presumptively  alive  and  undi- 
vorced. Such  a  marriage  is  merely  voidable  under  the  provi- 
sions of  section  1,  chapter  64,  of  the  Code. 

AVhere  one  of  the  parties  to  a  marriage  in  AVest  Virginia  had 
a  living  undivorced  spouse,  said  remarriage  is  absolutely  void 
without  decree  of  court  or  legal  process  if  contracted  prior  to 
April  1,  1869,  when  Code  I860,  chaj^ter  109,  section  1,  was  in 
force;  but  such  a  marriage,  if  contracted  subsequent  to  April 
1,  1869,  when  Code  1868,  chapter  64,  section  1,  was  in  force,  is 
void  only  from  the  time  it  is  so  declared  by  a  decree  of  divorce 
or  nullity. 

As  claimant  and  soldier  were  married  while  the  last-mentioned 
code  was  in  effect,  and  as  said  marriage  has  never  been  pro- 
nounced void  by  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction,  claimant  is 
the  widow  of  the  soldier. 


360  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

(rr)   Wisconsin. 

See  Divorce:     No.  7  (14  P.  D.,  173). 

See  Decree  of  Nullity:   No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  470). 

See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  12.  14,  5ind  15  P.  D. 

See  Laws  of,  and  14  P.  D.,  19. 

Marriage  and  Divorce — Legitimacy.     (Alleged   minors  of  Jonas 
W.  Pulver,  10  P.  D.,  227.) 

1.  A  common-law  marriage  is  good  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin. 
A  marriage  in  Wisconsin  when  one  of  the  parties  has  an  undi- 
vorced  living  husband  or  wife  is  void.  After  such  impediment 
is  removed  a  new  relation  must  be  shown  to  have  been  entered 
into  as  a  fact;  otherwise  the  continuance  of  the  cohabitation 
will  be  presumed  to  be  illicit.  (Williams  v.  Williams,  46  Wis., 
464.) 

2.  Children  born  of  a  marriage  null  in  law  are  legitimate  in 
Wisconsin.  (See  2274,  R.  S.  Wis.,  and  Watts  et  al.  v.  Owen, 
62  Wis.,  512.) 

3.  Such  fact  does  not,  however,  give  them  a  pensionable  status, 
for  a  pensionable  status  is  to  be  determined  wholly  by  the  laws  of 
the  United  States,  Avhich  limits  a  minor's  title  to  one  which  was, 
or  could  have  been,  in  the  legal  wife  (widow).  (Sec.  4702, 
R.  S.  U.  S.,  as  amended.) 

(ss)  Wyoming. 
No  case, 
(ss)  New  Mexico. 

See  Marriage:  No.  11  (15  P.  D.,  392). 
(ss)  Cherokee  Nation. 

See  Divorce:  No.  8  (12  P.  D.,  474). 
See  Marriage  :  No.  8  (13  P.  D.,  368). 
See  Laws  of,  and  12  P.  D.,  475. 

(ss)  Choctaw  Nation. 

See  Marriage:  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  283). 
See  Table  of  State  Statutes  for  15  P.  D. 

3.  Former  Marriage  No  Bar. 
(a)  Generally. 
MarHage  and  divorce — Presumptions.     (Jennette  Burton,  widow, 
9  P.  b.,  31.) 

1.  Claimant  having  established  by  the  record  that  she  was 
married  to  the  sailor  by  a  ceremony  June  23,  1878,  and  lived  with 
him  from  that  time  until  he  died,  April  28,  1895,  her  title  as 
widow  can  not  be  invalidated  by  a  mere  presumption  of  a  pre- 
vious common-law  marriage  of  the  sailor  to  another  woman. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  361 

2.  The  burden  of  proof  against  the  validity  of  the  ceremonial 
marriage  does  not  rest  upon  the  widow,  but  upon  the  parties  who 
attack  the  validity  of  such  ceremonial  marriage,  and  the  pre- 
sumption of  law  favors  innocence  of  the  latter  marriage,  until 
the  contrary  be  proved. 

Marriage — Impediment  to  marriage.  (Margaret  L.  Thomas, 
widow,9P.  D.,  139.) 

Claimant  w^as  married  to  the  soldier  by  a  ceremony  in  1875, 
and  lived  with  him  in  Michigan  until  his  death  in  1895;  at  the 
time  of  said  marriage  soldier  had  a  wife  living  who  procured  a 
divorce  from  him  in  1877,  all  of  which  facts  w^ere  unknown  to 
claimant  during  the  lifetime  of  the  soldier. 

Held:  That  as  claimant  was  the  innocent  party,  and  was  kept 
in  ignorance  of  the  fact  that  a  legal  impediment  to  her  marriage 
to  soldier  existed  at  the  time  of  such  marriage,  and  that  during 
all  the  time  from  the  removal  of  the  impediment  in  1877  to 
soldier^s  death  in  1895  the  parties  cohabited  together  as  husband 
and  wife,  uniting  in  conveyances,  and  JDining  in  church  mem- 
bership, and  deporting  themselves  generally  in  accordance  with 
good  morals,  and  being  universally  recognized  by  their  neigh- 
bors, friends,  and  acquaintances  as  husband  and  w^ife,  a  valid 
marriage  subsequent  to  the  removal  of  the  impediment  will  be 
presumed,  distinguishing  this  case  from  that  of  Ellen,  widow  of 
William  A.  Palmer  (150^ P.  L.  Bk.,  2e35). 

Marriage  and  divorce — Evidence,  (Sarah  Newberry,  widow,  10 
P.  D.,  294.) 

'  Claimant  maintained  an  illicit  relation  with  one  Henry  Davis 
from  about  1869  to  1882,  in  the  States  of  Illinois  and  Missouri, 
when  they  separated  and  both  married  thereafter,  Davis  marry- 
ing in  Sedalia,  Mo.,  in  1884,  and  claimant  marrying  soldier  in 
1885,  by  a  ceremony,  with  whom  she  lived  as  his  wife  until  his 
death  in  1891.  Claimant  and  Davis  both  swear  that  they  were 
never  married  to  each  other,  and  the  evidence  does  not  show  that 
they  were  ever  regarded  as  husband  and  wife  in  the  communi- 
ties where  they  lived. 

Held:  That  the  cohabitation  of  claimant  and  Davis  was  illicit 
and  not  matrimonial,  and  that  her  marriage  to  the  soldier  was 
valid. 

Marriage — Impediment — Void  marriage — Act  June  27,  1890. 
(Sarah  Sanford,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  106.) 

The  deceased  soldier  was  first  lawfully  married  in  1857,  in 
Mifflin  County,  Pa.,  to  one  Amelia  Ryan,  with  whom  he  lived  as 
his  wife  until  1866,  when  he  deserted  her  and  went  to  Platte 
County,  Mo.,  where  he  married  one  Elmyra  Burns,  in  August, 


362  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

1867.  He  deserted  this  second  wife,  Elmyra,  in  a  few  months, 
and  there  is  no  proof  that  he  ever  lived  w  ith  her,  or  acknowledged 
her  as  his  wife  afterwards.  The  evidence  shows  that  the  soldier 
was  never  divorced  from  his  first  wife,  Amelia,  who  is  shown  to 
have  died  in  1878.  He  married  the  appellant,  Sarah  Waddle,  in 
Calhoun  County,  111.,  in  1887,  nine  years  after  the  death  of  the 
first  wife,  Amelia,  and  lived  with  her  as  his  wife  until  his  death 
in  1894. 

Held:  That  the  second  marriage  of  the  soldier  to  Elmyra, 
while  the  first  wife  was  living  and  undivorced,  w^as  illegal  and 
absolutely  void,  never  became  a  lawful  union,  and  constituted  no 
bar  or  impediment  to  his  marriage  to  this  appellant  in  1887,  after 
the  dissolution  of  his  first  and  only  lawful  prior  marriage  by 
the  death  of  Amelia,  and  that  the  appellant  is  shown  to  have 
been  the  lawful  wife  of  the  soldier,  and  should  be  accepted  as  his 
widow  for  pensionable  purposes. 

Marriage — Evidence — Presumptions.     (Esther  A.  Palmer,  wadow, 
11  P.  D.,  320.) 

The  claimant  having  proved  the  fact  of  her  marriage  to  the 
soldier  according  to  the  law  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  co- 
habitated  with  him  as  his  wife  from  the  marriage  to  the  date  of 
his  death,  sixteen  years  afterwards,  her  pensionable  status  w^as 
established.  A  mere  presumption  of  life  of  a  prior  husband  can 
not  prevail  against  the  presumption  of  the  innocence  of  parties 
who  enter  the  marriage  relation  according  to  legal  forms. 

(b)   Claimants'  Admissions. 

Marriage     and     divorce — Evidence — Admissions.       (Mary     Aiin 
Jones,  widow,  10  P.  D.,  297.) 

Claimant  first  stated  that  she  was  previously  married  to  one 
Neil  in  the  Isle  of  Man,  England,  by  whom  she  had  one  child,  a 
daughter,  and  that  her  said  husband  was  dead.  Evidence  taken 
on  special  examination  shows  claimant's  maiden  name  to  have 
been  Neil,  and  that  her  daughter  was  the  fruit  of  an  illicit  rela- 
tion with  a  man  in  England,  and  claimant  now  admits  this, 
claiming  that  she  had  represented  herself  as  a  widow  to  conceal 
from  said  daughter  that  she  was  an  illegitimate  child,  and  it  is 
held  that  there  was  no  impediment  to  her  marriage  to  the 
soldier. 

Marriage — Evidence — Presumption  of  death — Impediment.     ( Eliz- 
abeth Adams,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  312. 

The  only  testimony  as  to  claimant's  first  marriage  and  as  to 
that  husband's  death  being  her  own  statement,  which  shows  also 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  363 

that  his  death  was  prior  to  her  second  marriage,  she  appearing 
to  be  a  woman  of  good  reputation,  and  no  further  testimony  ap- 
pearing to  be  procurable,  she  is  held  to  have  satisfactorily  estab- 
lished her  capacity  to  remarry. 

Her  second  marriage  is  shown  of  record;  also  a  third,  to  the 
soldier,  three  years  later,  and  subsequent  to  the  reported  death 
in  England  of  her  second  husband,  but  the  only  testimony  as  to 
the  death  of  her  second  husband  is  her  own  statement,  none  other 
appearing  to  be  procurable.  She  and  soldier  cohabited  as  hus- 
band and  wife  until  his  death  nearly  thirty  years  after  their 
marriage,  with  no  further  news  of  her  second  husband. 

Held:  Assuming  her  formal  marriage  to  the  soldier  was  in- 
valid and  void,  the  prior  death  of  her  second  husband  not  being 
satisfactorily  established  by  proof,  that  the  latter's  death  may  be 
presumed  under  the  general  rule  as  to  presumption  of  death, 
and  that  there  was  a  valid  common-law  marriage  subsequent  to 
the  seven-year  period  mentioned  in  said  rule. 
Marriage — Impediment — Evidence.  (Rebecca  J.  Fisher,  widow, 
12  P.  D.,  417.) 

The  only  evidence  of  a  prior  marriage  of  claimant  or  soldier 
is  the  statement  of  the  former  coupled  with  the  statement  that 
the  first  husband  and  wife  died  years  before  the  second  mar- 
riage, but  that  it  was  impossible  for  her  at  that  late  date  to 
furnish  further  evidence  as  to  that  fact. 

Held :  That  claimant  having  proved  the  fact  of  her  marriage 
to  the  soldier  according  to  the  laws  of  Texas,  where  said  mar- 
riage was  celebrated  and  where  the  parties  resided  at  the  time 
the  right  to  pension  accrued,  and  having  cohabited  with  soldier 
as  his  wife  from  the  date  of  said  marriage  to  the  date  of  his 
death,  ten  years  thereafter,  her  pensionable  status  was  estab- 
lished, as  the  mere  presumption  of  life  of  a  prior  husband  or 
wife  can  not  prevail  against  the  presumption  of  the  innocence 
of  the  parties  who  enter  the  marriage  relation  according  to  legal 
forms.  (Esther  A.  Palmer,  11  P.  D.,  320.) 
(c)  Soldiers'  Admissions. 
Marriage  and  divorce — Evidence.  (Sarah  Buchanan,  widow,  10 
P.  D.,  423.) 

The  only  evidence  of  a  prior  marriage  of  this  sailor  being  his 
own  statement,  in  which  he  says  also  that  he  was  divorced  from 
such  marriage  before  and  was  a  widower  at  the  time  of  his  for- 
mal remarriage  to  claimant,  with  whom  he  lived  for  twenty-five 
years  thereafter  until  his  death,  such  remarriage  is  held  to  have 
been  a  valid  one,  and  claimant  his  lawful  widow,  notwithstand- 


364  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

ing  there  is  no  corroborative  evidence  of  such  divorce  from  the 
prior  marriage,  or  of  the  first  wife's  death. 
Marriage  and  divorce — Evidence.     (Carrie  Peterson,  widow,   11 
P.  D.,  139.) 

Claimant's  marriage  to  the  soldier  is  shown  by  evidence  of  a 
ceremony  and  cohabitation.  The  only  evidence  of  his  prior  mar- 
riage is  the  testimony  of  his  sister  and  a  friend,  to  whom  he  wrote 
or  disclosed  that  he  had  married  a  girl  in  a  seaport  while  he  was 
pursuing  the  occupation  of  a  sailor.  His  mere  declaration,  with- 
out other  proof,  is  not  competent  to  establish  such  a  marriage  to 
the  prejudice  of  the  rights  of  this  claimant,  and,  on  this  point, 
her  legal  widowhood  is  considered  established. 
Marriage  and  divorce — Evidence — Presumptions.  (Mary  M.  A. 
Wood,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  158.) 

The  claimant  being  unable  to  prove,  by  the  testimony  of  per- 
sonal acquaintances,  that  she  was  never  married  prior  to  her  mar- 
riage to  the  soldier,  or  to  furnish  any  evidence  of  the  death  of 
the  soldier's  first  wife,  except  a  sworn  statement  made  by  the  sol- 
dier himself  less  than  a  year  before  his  death,  but  all  the  known 
facts,  as  well  as  the  presumptions  of  law,  being  favorable  to  the 
validity  of  her  said  marriage,  it  is  held  to  have  been  a  valid  mar- 
riage. 
Marriage  and  divorce — Evidence — Presumptions.  (Annie  D.  Bur- 
goyne,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  182.) 

The  claimant  proves  her  marriage  to  the  sailor  in  1888  and 
continuous  cohabitation  w^ith  him  from  that  time  until  his  death 
in  1895.  The  only  reason  for  questioning  the  validity  of  said 
marriage  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  sailor  stated  he  had  been  pre- 
viously married,  but  he  also  affirmed  that  his  former  wife  was 
dead.  No  other  evidence  of  former  marriage  or  death  of  first 
wife  can  be  obtained. 

Held:  That  the  mere  possibility  remaining,  after  all  sources 
of  information  have  been  exhausted,  that  there  was  a  former  wife 
living  in  1888  is  not  sufficient  to  defeat  the  prima  facie  title  of 
the  claimant  based  on  record  evidence  of  a  ceremonial  marriage 
followed  by  continuous  cohabitation  for  a  period  of  seven  years. 
Marriage  and  divorce — Impediment — Evidence.  (Sella  Ambers, 
widow,  12  P.  D.,  333.) 

In  a  case  where  the  evidence  establishes  the  marriage  of  claim- 
ant to  the  soldier,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  parties  were 
incapacitated  for  marriage  at  its  date  other  than  the  soldier's 
own  statement  that  he  had  been  previously  married,  in  which  he 
also  said  that  his  former  wife  had  died  before  his  marriage  to 
claimant,  the  marriage  is  not  successfully  attacked  nor  its  va- 
lidity destroyed. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  365 

4.  Former  Marriage  Held  a  Bar. 

See  No.  2  (hli),  this  chapter  (15  P.  D.,  543). 
Mcumage  and  divorce — Civil  death.     (Elizabeth  W.  P^ox,  widow, 
9P.  D.,  5). 

1.  Claimant  at  date  of  her  marriage  to  soldier  had  a  former 
husband  living  from  whom  she  had  not  been  divorced,  but  who 
had  been  convicted  of  a  felony  and  imprisoned. 

Held:  The  doctrine  of  civil  death  is  not  recognized  by  the  law 
or  courts  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  and  imprisonment  for  felony, 
while  affording  just  grounds  for  a  divorce,  does  not  per  se  oper- 
ate as  a  divorce. 

2.  Under  the  statutes  of  Indiana,  where  claimant  married  the 
soldier,  all  marriages  where  either  party  thereto  has  a  former 
wife  or  husband  living,  if  solemnized  in  that  State,  are  declared 
to  be  absolutely  void  without  any  legal  proceedings. 

Marriage — Legitimacy.     (Theresia  Schreve,  now  Schmidt,  9  P.  D., 
T8.) 

There  being  evidence  in  the  case  showing  that  soldier  had  a 
wife  living  in  Germany,  whom  he  deserted  prior  to  his  marriage 
to  claimant,  it  is  incumbent  upon  her  to  show  the  death  of  said 
first  wife,  or  that  the  parties  were  divorced,  before  she  can  be 
regarded  the  legal  widow  of  said  soldier;  and  in  the  absence  of 
such  proof  the  minor  child  of  soldier  by  said  claimant  can  not 
be  regarded  as  legitimate. 
Marriage  and  divorce — Impediment.  (Louisa  S.  Hoepfner,  widow, 
9P.  b.,497.) 

Claimant  was  married  to  soldier  May  23,  1896,  at  which  time 
she  had  a  former  husband  living  from  w^hom  she  was  not  di- 
vorced, but  who  died  August  13,  1896.  Soldier  died  August  19, 
1896.  From  August  13  to  August  19,  1896,  claimant  lived  with 
soldier  as  his  wife  in  the  same  unchanged  relation  as  prior  to 
August  13,  1896. 

Held:  That  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  in 
which  the  parties  resided  at  the  time  of  her  first  and  second  hus- 
band's death,  a  valid  marriage  is  not  shown,  and  claimant  is 
therefore  not  the  widow  of  the  soldier  and  has  no  title  to  a 
widow's  pension  under  any  law. 
Marriage  and  divorce — Evidence.  (Mary  J.  Stocker,  widow,  9 
P.  D.,  506.) 

It  having  been  admitted  by  appellant  that  both  she  and  the 
soldier  on  account  of  whose  service  and  death  she  claims  pension, 
had  been  married  previous  to  their  marriage  to  each  other,  it  is 
incumbent  upon  her  to  establish  the  dissolution  of  said  prior 
marriage  by  either  death  or  divorce  before  she  can  be  regarded 
as  the  lawful  widow  of  said  deceased  soldier. 


866  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Marriage — Impediment,     (Sarah  F.  Sullivan,  now  Morris,  widow, 
10  P.  D.,  179.) 

The  evidence  shows  the  claimant's  marriage  to  the  soldier 
was  invalid,  he  having  at  that  time  a  former  wife  living  and 
undivorced. 
Marriage  and  divorce — Impediment.     (Harriet  Comstock,  alleged 
widow,  10  P.  D.,  220.) 

At  the  date  of  claimant's  alleged  marriage  to  soldier,  in  1864, 
in  the  State  of  New  York,  she  had  a  former  husband  living  from 
whom  she  had  not  been  divorced.  She  continued  to  live  and  co- 
habit with  soldier  in  the  States  of  New  York,  Minnesota,  and  in 
Michigan,  from  1884  up  to  the  date  of  his  death,  in  1893.  Her 
first  husband  died  in  1866.  On  September  27,  1891,  a  marriage 
ceremony  was  performed  between  the  claimant  and  soldier  in 
the  State  of  Michigan. 

Held:  That  as  claimant's  relation  with  soldier  was  illicit  in 
its  commencement,  it  is  so  presumed  to  continue  until  a  changed 
relation  is  proved,  and  actual  marriage  can  not  be  presumed 
from  continued  cohabitation  and  reputation  after  the  removal 
of  the  legal  impediment  by  the  death  of  her  first  husband.  ( Rose 
V.  Rose,  67  Mich.,  619;  Ellen  A.  Palmer,  7  P.  D.,  363;  Louisa  S. 
Hoepfner,  9  P.  D.,  497 ;  AYilhelmina  K.  Monteton,  10  P.  D.,  12, 
and  Indiana  Christie,  ibid.,  15.) 
Marriage — Louisiana  and  Mississippi — Evidence.  (Louisa  C.  Ger- 
main, widow,  10  P.  D.,  393.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  at  the  time  of  claimant's  marriage  to 
the  sailor  he  had  a  lawful  wife  living  and  undivorced,  so  that  the 
marriage  was  void  ab  initio.  This  is  not  only  the  general  rule 
of  law,  but  is  in  accord  with  the  decisions  of  the  courts,  especially 
in  Louisiana  and  Mississippi,  where  these  parties  lived.  And 
there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  a  new^  contract  of  marriage  or 
other  form  of  consent  was  entered  into  after  the  removal  of  the 
impediment — that  is,  the  death  of  the  first  wife,  which  was  five 
months  before  sailor's  death.  Marriage  can  not  be  presumed, 
and  rejection  of  claim  was  proper. 
Marriage  and  divorce — Evidence — Decree.  (Kate  E.  Richardson, 
as  widow,  10  P.  D.,  409.) 

It  appearing  from  the  evidence  that  the  deceased  soldier  had 
been  lawfully  married  to  another  woman  prior  to  his  marriage 
to  this  appellant,  and  that  said  first  wife  is  still  living,  and  there 
being  no  sufficient  evidence  that  said  first  marriage  was  ever 
legally  dissolved  by  divorce,  this  appellant  can  not  be  recognized 
as  the  widow  of  the  soldier  and  is  not  entitled,  under  the  proof 
in  this  case,  to  pension  as  such  widow  under  the  provisions  of 
section  4702,  Revised  Statutes. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  367 

Marriage  —  Evidence  —  Presumption.  (Elizabeth  Henderson,  al- 
leged widow,  11  P.  D.,  204.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  the  soldier  had,  at  the  time  of  his 
formal  marriage  to  this  claimant  in  1874,  a  living  and  undi- 
vorced  former  wife,  who  died  in  1892,  having  been  insane  since 
1860. 

Held:  Said  marriage  in  1874  was  invalid  and  void,  and  a 
valid  marriage  subsequent  to  the  death  of  his  lawful  wife  in 
1892,  his  own  death  occurring  in  1896,  is  not  presumable  from  the 
circumstances  shown. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Impediment — Evidence.  (Caroline  Wag- 
ner, alleged  widow,  12  P.  D.,  134.) 

It  appearing  from  the  evidence  in  this  case  that  at  the  date 
of  the  marriage  of  this  appellant  to  the  deceased  soldier  he  had 
another  lawful  wife  living  and  undivorced,  her  marriage  to  him 
was  illegal  and  void  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
where  it  was  consummated  and  where  the  parties  resided;  and 
since  it  also  appears  that  the  appellant  had  no  knowledge  of  the 
existence  of  the  impediment  to  her  lawful  marriage  with  the 
soldier  until  after  his  death,  and  no  change  in  the  relationship 
sustained  by  said  parties  to  each  other  is  shown  after  the  removal 
of  the  impediment  to  their  lawful  union  by  the  death  of  the  first 
wife,  no  legal  marriage  is  established  between  the  appellant  and 
the  soldier,  and  she  is  not  his  pensionable  widow. 

Marriage  and  divorce  under  the  laws  of  Pennsylvania  and  Illi- 
nois— Impediment.     (Lola  T.  Harvey,  as  widow,  12  P.  D.,  326.) 

Appellant  was  married  to  the  soldier  in  the  State  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, June  13,  1886,  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of  said  State, 
and  thereafter  lived  with  him  as  his  wife  in  the  State  of  Illinois 
to  the  date  of  his  death  in  1898.  At  the  time  said  marriage  was 
celebrated  soldier  had  a  wife  living  who  w^as  divorced  from  him 
September  20,  1886,  which  fact  was  not  known  to  appellant  until 
after  soldier's  death. 

Held:  That  appellant's  marriage  to  soldier  in  June,  1886,  was 
void,  and  that,  under  these  facts,  and  the  laws  of  Pennsylvania, 
where  this  second  marriage  was  celebrated,  and  of  Illinois,  where 
the  parties  resided  at  the  time  the  right*  to  pension  accrued,  a 
marriage  subsequent  to  the  removal  of  the  impediment  to  a  valid 
marriage  between  the  parties  by  the  divorce  of  soldier's  first  wife 
in  September,  1886,  can  not  be  presumed,  and  appellant  can  not . 
be  regarded  as  the  widow  of  said  soldier  for  pensionable  pur- 
poses. (See  cases  of  Cartwright  et  al.  v.  McGowen,  121  111.,  388, 
and  Sarah  C.  Hay  den,  8  P.  D.,  364,  and  cases  therein  cited.) 


368  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Evidence — Record — Duress..  (Ellen  Dev- 
ening,  alleged  widow,  12  P.  D.,  434.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  the  claimant  was  lawfully  married 
to  one  James  Holleran  (who  is  still  living)  prior  to  her  marriage 
to  the  soldier,  and  fails  to  show  that  said  prior  marriage  was 
ever  legally  annulled  or  dissolved.  It  is  therefore  held  that  her 
marriage  to  the  soldier  was  invalid. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Prior  marriage — Impediment,  (Alice 
Franklin  and  Ellen  Franklin,  claimants  as  widows,  12  P.  D.,  505.) 

Claimant  Alice  married  the  wdthin-named  soldier  in  1863,  and 
he  deserted  her  about  the  year  1868.  She  subsequently  attempted 
to  contract  two  other  marriages,  and  the  soldier  died,  after  said 
attempts,  in  the  year  1894. 

Held:  Claimant's  subsequent  marriages  w^ere  void  ab  initio  for 
the  reason  that  she  had  a  living  and  undivorced  husband  at  the 
dates  on  which  she  attempted  to  contract  said  marriages.  She  is 
now  the  widow  of  soldier. 

Claimant  Ellen  married  soldier  in  the  year  1869,  and  he  died  in 
the  year  1894.  Soldier  at  the  date  of  his  marriage  with  claimant 
had  a  living  undivorced  wife,  and  said  wife  is  now  living. 

Held :  Claimant  is  not  the  widow  of  the  soldier  in  question. 

Marriage — Evidence — Impediment — Divorce.  (Mary  J.  Gilliland, 
widow,  13  P.  D.,  90.) 

The  evidence  fails  to  satisfactorily  account  for  either  the  death 
or  divorce  of  the  officer's  two  former  wives,  and  the  whole  history 
of  the  case  fails  to  warrant  a  presumption  that  the  marriage  with 
claimant  was  a  legal  one. 

The  Government  is  not  called  upon,  or  required,  in  a  pension 
claim,  to  prove  any  issue;  and  in  the  case  of  a  disputed  marriage 
the  burden  of  proof  does  not  shift  to  the  Government  to  prove  the 
illegality  of  any  marriage. .  The  Government  is  neither  a  defend- 
ant or  contestant  in  a  pension  claim,  but  is  required,  under  the 
law,  to  passAipon  the  evidence  in  such  a  claim,  subject  to  the  rules 
and  laws  which  universally  obtain.  Any  statement  to  the  con- 
trary effect  in  the  opinion  in  the  case  of  Jeannette  Burton  (9 
P.  D.,  31)  is  hereby  expressly  overruled. 
Marriage — Evidence — Probate  court — Act  of  August  7,  1882. 
(Diana  M.  Dana,  13  P.  D.,  272.) 

1.  A  special  examiner's  report  as  to  the  fact  and  purport  of  a 
probate  court's  finding  as  to  claimant's  marital  status,  with  cor- 
roborative sworn  testimony  of  the  probate  judge  who  made  such 
finding  and  of  the  party  who  procured  the  testimony  on  which 
it  was  based,  is  sufficient  introduction  in  evidence  in  a  i3ension 
claim  of  said  finding  Avhen  no  contest  as  to  it  is  made  and  when 
the  claimant  against  whom  it  is  made  admits  it. 


r 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  369 

2.  Such  finding  is  not  a  law  of  the  State  witliin  the  meaning  of 
the  act  of  August  7,  1882,  and  is  not  binding  upon  the  Depart- 
ment in  the  adjudication  of  such  claim;  but  as  a  rule  it  will  be 
followed  when  rendered  by  a  competent  tribunal  and  is  valid  on 
its  face. 

3.  The  word  "  laws  "  as  used  in  the  act  of  August  7,  1882,  pro- 
viding that  marriages  shall  be  proven  in  pension  claims  to  be 
legal  marriages  "  according  to  the  laws  "  of  the  place  where  the 
parties  resided,  should  be  "limited  to  local  statutes  (and  their 
construction  by  the  local  tribunals)  and  local  usages  "  having  the 
force  of  laws.   (Swift  v,  Tyson,  16  Pet,  18.) 

'  4.  Secondary  evidence  as  to  the  contents  and  purport  of  lost 
records  is  admissible  on  proof  of  the  loss  of  such  records. 

5.  The  evidence  herein  shows  this  soldier  was  married  prior  to 
his  marriage  to  the  claimant;  that  his  first  wife  was  living  at  the 
time  of  his  death,  and  that  she  w^as  found  by  the  probate  court 
administering  his  estate  to  be  his  Avidow.  The  claimant  is  not, 
therefore,  entitled  to  pension  as  widow,  she  not  having  established 
a  valid  marriage  according  to  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Maine, 
where  she  and  soldier  resided. 
Marriage — Evidence — Impediment.  (Mary  Marsh,  as  widow,  13 
P.  D.,402.) 

The  evidence  fails  to  show  satisfactorily  that  the  two  former 

marriages  of  the  claimant's  alleged  husband  were  illegal  or  have 

been  dissolved  by  either  death  or  divorce.     (Mary  J.  Gilliland, 

13P.  D.,  90.) 

[Marriage  and  divorce — Evidence.     (Maria  White,  widow,  14  P.  D., 

21-) 

As  soldier  had  a  wife  living  from  whom  he  had  not  been  di- 
vorced at  the  time  of  his  marriage  to  claimant,  such  marriage  was 
null  and  void;  and  as  soldier's  first  wife  survived  him,  and 
neither  ever  having  procured  a  divorce,  there  was  no  period  of 
time  when  claimant  and  soldier  could  have  been  legally  married, 
she  is  not  his  widow  nor  entitled  to  pension. 
Marriage  and  divorce — Void  marriage — Impediment.  (Emma  A. 
Morrill,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  310.) 

The  evidence  clearly  shows  that  the  marriage  between  claimant 
and  Parsons  was  consummated  when  Parsons  bad  a  living  and 
undivorced  wife,  and,  under  the  facts  in  evidence,  no  common- 
law  marriage  could  possibly  have  sprung  into  existence  after  the 
death  of  said  wife. 

The  marriage  with  Parsons  was  void  ab  initio,  and  claimant's 
status  is  Ihe  same  as  if  no  marriage  had  ever  taken  place  between 
herself  and  Parsons. 

13070— OG 24 


370  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

5.  Fraud. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Fraud.     (Elizabeth  Acton,  alleged  widow 
of  John  Qiiinn,  10  P.  D.,  258.) 

Claimant  alleges  that  she  was  married  to  the  soldier,  John 
Qiiinn,  at  Vincennes,  Ind.,  November  20,  1867,  under  her  maiden 
name  of  Elizabeth  Ryan,  and  relies  entirely  for  proof  of  that  fact 
on  a  certified  transcript  of  the  marriage  records  of  the  county  in 
which  Vincennes  is  situated,  showing  the  marriage  of  one  John 
Quinn  to  "  Eliza  Frederick  "  on  the  date  alleged.  It  is  con- 
clusively proved  that  said  marriage  record  referred  to  entirely 
different  persons  than  alleged  by  claimant,  and  that  the  minors 
of  John  Quinn,  of  Company  F,  Twentv-fourth  Indiana  Volun- 
teers, the  person  to  whom  said  record  refers,  have  filed  a  copy  of 
the  same  record  to  prove  the  marriage  of  their  deceased  father  to 
their  mother,  Eliza  Frederick ;  therefore,  claimant  having  failed 
to  23rove  her  marriage  to  soldier,  can  not  be  regarded  as  his  law- 
ful widow. 

6.  Hearsay  Evidence  as  to  Death. 

Marriage — Evidence — Hearsay — Proof  of  death.     (Susan  Cahoe, 
widow,  13  P.  D.,  96.) 

The  evidence  of  claimant  and  three  w^itnesses  that  heard  the 
fact  of  claimant's  first  husband's  (Gavin)  death  from  drown- 
ing from  McLean  and  Cahoe,  claimant's  last  husband  (both  now 
dead),  who  were  with  said  Gavin  at  the  time  of  the  droAvning, 
and  who  immediately  on  their  return  conveyed  the  information 
to  the  claimant  and  the  neighbors,  and  the  fact  that  said  Gavin's 
daughter  grew  to  womanhood  believing  that  her  father  came  to 
his  death  as  stated  by  these  deceased  persons,  sufficiently  estab- 
lished the  death  of  such  person,  the  declarations  of  these  wit- 
nesses in  their  lifetime  being  so  connected  with  the  principal  fact 
under  investigation  that  they  are  admissible  as  original  evidence. 
(1  Green.  Ev.,  sec.  108.) 

7.  Impediment  of  Blood. 

Marriage  in  Mississippi — Impediment  of  blood.     (Ann  Cahal,  al- 
leged widow,  9  P.  D.,  127.) 

Evidence  secured  by  special  examination  shows  that  soldier 
w^as  a  white  man  and  claimant  is  a  negro.  The  intermarriage  of 
the  races  being  prohibited  by  the  laws  of  Mississippi,  in  which 
State  the  parties  resided,  their  cohabitation  could  not  be  regarded 
as  a  legal  marriage,  but  was  mere  concubinage,  and  claimant  is 
not  the  lawful  widow  of  the  soldier  nor  entitled  to  pension  as 
such. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  371 

Marriage  of  colored  to  white  persons  in  Texas.  (Mary  A.  Miller, 
colored,  9  P.  D.,  209.) 

A  colored  woman  and  former  slave,  who  married  and  cohabited 
with  a  white  man  and  ex-soldier  in  the  State  of  Texas,  has  no 
pensionable  status  as  his  widow  for  the  reason  that  such  marriage 
was  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  that  State  and  null  and  void. 
(Article  2843,  Revised  Statutes,  Texas.) 

8.  Indian  Marriages. 

Marriage  —  Indians  —  Legitimacy  —  Widow,  (Minor  of  Rabbit 
Bunch,  13  P.  D.,  368.) 

Marriages  according  to  tribal  custom  are  valid  in  the  Cherokee 
Nation  of  Indians,  and  according  to  such  custom  no  form,  rite, 
or  ceremony  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  such  marriages,  the 
mere  taking  up  and  living  together  as  husband  and  wafe  of  a 
man  and  a  woman,  neither  having  a  former  wife  or  husband 
living,  being  sufficient  to  constitute  such  relation  a  customary 
marriage. 

The  evidence  herein  shows  this  claimant's  parents  were  mar- 
ried according  to  said  tribal  custom,  and  that  she  is  the  soldier's 
legitimate  child,  but  as  the  widow,  her  mother,  is  yet  living  and 
has  not  forfeited  her  pensionable  status,  appellant  has  no  title 
to  pension,  and  her  claim  was  properly  rejected  on  this  ground. 

Marriage — Choctaw  Nation — Citizenship — Impediment.  ( Martha 
Draper,  alleged  widow,  15  P.  D.,  283.) 

1.  The  Choctaw  Nation  is,  for  domestic  purposes,  a  self-gov- 
erning State,  a  "  place  "  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  August 
7,  1882,  and  the  validity  of  marriages  within  its  jurisdiction  is 
determinable  by  its  laws. 

2.  Divorce  by  tribal  custom  has  been  abrogated  in  the  Choctaw 
Nation  since  October  30,  1800,  when  the  powder  to  divorce  was 
delegated  to  the  circuit  court  of  said  nation. 

3.  Claimant  is  a  citizen  of  the  Choctaw  Nation ;  soldier,  a  white 
man,  was  not.  At  the  time  of  the  attempted  marriage  in  the 
Choctaw  Nation  soldier  had  a  living  undivorced  wife.  Said 
marriage  was  therefore  invalid.  Nor  could  a  subsequent  valid 
marriage  arise  after  removal  of  impediment  by  the  suppositive 
death  or  divorce  of  the  first  w^ife.  For,  under  the  provision  of 
chapter  7  of  the  Laws  of  the  Choctaw  Nation,  a  marriage  be- 
tween one  not  a  citizen  of  that  nation  and  a  female  citizen  thereof 
is  invalid  unless  the  man  first  obtains  a  license  therefor,  making 
oath  that  he  has  no  surviving  and  undivorced  wife,  and  present- 
ing a  certificate  of  good  moral  character,  signed  by  ten  respect- 
able Choctaws,  citizens  by  blood.     No  such  marriage  is  in  evi- 


372  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

dence  in  this  case.     Claimant  is  therefore  not  the  widow  of  the 
soldier. 

9.  Insanity. 

Mai^riage — Insanity — Impediment.     (Mary  J.  Storms,  widow,  10 
P.  D.,  192.) 

As  soldier  was  incapable  of  entering  into  a  marriage  relation 
by  reason  of  insanity,  the  claimant's  marriage  to  him  is  void, 
and  therefore  action  rejecting  her  claims  for  pension  upon  the 
ground  indicated  was  proper. 

Marriage — Ohio — West    Virginia — Place    of    contract — Domicile. 
(Bethany  F.  Boster,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  308.) 

1.  A  marriage  contracted  in  West  Virginia  at  a  time  when  one 
of  the  parties  thereto  is  mentally  incapable  of  entering  into  the 
contract  is  not  void,  but  merely  voidable  from  the  time  it  is  so 
declared  by  a  decree  of  divorce  or  nullity.  (Code  W.  Va.,  ch. 
64,  sec.  1.) 

2.  A  marriage  contracted  in  Ohio  under  such  circumstances  is 
absolutely  void  ab  initio.  (Waymire  v.  Jetmore,  22  Ohio  Stat., 
271.) 

3.  A  marriage  is  valid  for  pension  purposes  if  valid  according 
to  the  law  of  the  place  where  the  parties  resided  at  the  time  it 
was  contracted,  not  according  to  the  lex  loci  contractus.  Thus 
where  parties  incapable  of  entering  into  a  valid  contract  of 
marriage  in  the  State  where  they  reside  temporarily  go  into 
another  State  the  laws  of  which  are  different  and  in  which  they 
have  no  residence  for  the  purpose  of  making  such  a  contract 
their  status  will  be  governed  by  the  law  of  the  State  Avhere  they 
reside. 

10.  Marriage  after  Passage  of  Act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Marriage  and  divorce-^Act  of  Juns  27^  1890.     (Mary  Munsell, 
widow,  9  P.  D.,  30.) 

Claimant  and  soldier  were  divorced,  a  viniculo,  on  claimant's 
petition.  May  6,  1887.  The  decree  of  divorce  w^as  disregarded  by 
both  parties,  they  continuing  to  cohabit  together  the  same  as  if 
no  decree  had  been  granted.  They  were  remarried  by  ceremony 
on  February  27,  1891. 

Held:  The   relation   existing   between    soldier    and    claimant 
from  May  6,  1887,  to  February  27,  1891,  was  illicit,  and  claim- 
ant was  not  the  legal  wife  of  soldier  on  June  27,  1890. 
Marriage — Cohabitation — Act  of  June  27,  1890.     (Mary  Newland, 
as  widow,  13  P.  D.,  338.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case  shows  that  the  relations  which 
existed  between  the  deceased  soldier  and  this  appellant  prior  to 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  378 

their  public  ceremonial  marriage,  July  21,  1892,  were  not  matri- 
monial, but  unlawful  and  illicit,  and  did  not  constitute  a  com- 
mon-law marriage.  The  appellant  having  married  the  soldier 
subsequent  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  has  no  title 
to  pension  thereunder  as  his  widow. 

Marriage — Act  of  June  27^  1890 — Widovj''s  title.     (Nancy  Byrd, 
widow,  14  P.  D.,  347.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  claimant  married  soldier  September 
26,  1901.  This  was  after  the  passage  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
and  therefore,  according  to  the  provisions  of  said  act,  she  has  no 
pensionable  status  under  the  same. 

Marriage — Act   of  June   27^   1890 — Divorce.     (Drucilla   Walker, 
widow,  11  P.  D.,  488.) 

Claimant's  marriage  to  the  soldier  in  1878,  he  having  at  the 
time  a  former  wife  living  who  was  not  divorced  from  him  until 
1890,  was  null  and  void,  and  as  claimant  was  not  and  could  not 
have  been  legally  married  to  the  soldier  prior  to  the  passage  of 
the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  she  can  have  no  title  to  pension  under 
said  act  by  reason  of  the  proviso  to  the  third  section  thereof. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Minors''  pension  act  of  June  27^  1890.    (Mary 
E.  Resser,  widow;  minors  of  Charles  W.  Resser,  10  P.  D.,  266.) 

1.  It  appearing  that  the  last  marriage  of  this  appellant,  Mary 
E.  Resser,  to  the  deceased  soldier  was  subsequent  to  the  passage 
of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  she  has  no  title  whatever  to  pension 
as  his  widow,  under  the  express  provisions  of  the  third  section 
of  said  act. 

2.  It  also  appearing  that  the  widow  of  said  deceased  soldier 
is  still  living  and  unmarried,  his  minor  children  have  no  title  to 
pension  under  the  provisions  of  said  section.  (Minor  child  of 
Lafayette  Howard,  8  P.  D.,  230;  Minors  of  John  Davis,  9  P.  D., 
151.) 

11.  Marriage  Determined  by  the  Lex  loci. 

Marriage — Evidence — Section  Jt705^  Revised  Statutes^  and  act  of 
August  7,  1882..    (Minor  of  Jack  Redbird,  12  P.  D.,  517.) 

Section  4705  of  the  Revised  Statutes  does  not  exclude  proof  of 
marriage  under  section  2  of  the  act  of  August  7,  1882. 

Marriage — New  Mexico — Evidence.     (Desideria  L.  Brooks,  widow, 
15  P.  D.,  392.) 

Parol  evidence  is  competent  evidence  in  proof  of  a  ceremonial 
marriage  in  New  Mexico,  and  the  celebration  of  the  marriage 
being  proven,  the  contract,  the  capacity  of  the  parties,  and,  in 
fact,  the  validity  of  the  marriage  are  presumed. 

The  fact  of  the  marriage  of  claimant  and  soldier  in  New 


874  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Mexico  is  established,  and  the  alleged  fact  of  a  prior  marriage 
on  his  part  is  not  shown  by  evidence  sufficient  to  rebut  the  pre 
sumption  of  the  validity  of  the  marriage  in  question. 

Marriage — Divorce — California — Domicile — Residence  —  Jurisdic- 
tion.    (Stella  A.  Mellen,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  459.) 

The  word  "  resided,"  used  in  section  2  of  the  act  of  August  7, 
1882,  refers  to  the  domicile  of  the  parties  and  not  to  the  tem- 
porary place  of  residence  of  both  or  either  of  them. 

During  coverture  the  wife's  domicile  in  legal  contemplation  is 
that  of-  her  husband,  and  as  her  title  to  pension  accrues  at  his 
death,  it  accrues  where  he  was  domiciled  at  that  time. 

12.  Presumption  of  Death. 

Emdence — Presumption  of  death — Marriage.  (Annie  Dennis, 
formerly  Keno,  widoAV,  9  P.  D.,  243.) 

Claimant's  first  husband  left  her  in  Missouri  in  1873  to  go  to 
Chicago,  111.,  for  medical  treatment,  and  a  few  months  later  she 
received  a  letter  from  his  sister  informing  her  that  he  was  dead. 
Relying  on  the  truth  of  this  statement  she  married  one  Holmes 
in  December,  1877,  who  procured  a  divorce  from  her  on  the 
ground  of  desertion  in  1882.  In  April,  1883,  claimant  married 
the  soldier,  who  died  in  July,  1890.  Her  first  husband  has  never 
been  heard  of  in  that  community  since  1873. 

Held:  These  facts  are  sufficient  to  raise  the  presumption  that 
claimant's  first  husband  had  died  prior  to  her  marriage  to 
Holmes,  and  her  marriage  to  the  soldier  was  legal,  and  she  is 
his  widow. 

Marriage  and  divorce -^  Impediment  —  Presumption  of  death. 
(Catharine  Conroy,  alleged  widow,  10  P.  D.,  162.) 

1.  Claimant's  husband,  Matthew  Lembert,  deserted  her,  and  she 
thereafter  was  married  by  ceremony  to  John  Conroy  in  the  State 
of  Pennsylvania.  There  are  no  facts  other  than  desertion  on 
which  to  found  a  presumption  of  death. 

Held:  Claimant  is  not  the  widow  of  John  Conroy.  (Sarah  C. 
Hayden,  8  P.  D.,  364;   Helen  L.  Pepper,  9  P.  D.,  500.) 

2.  Marriage,  in  pension  cases,  is  to  be  proven  under  section  2, 
act  of  August  7,  1882,  and  this  Department  will  be  generally 
guided,  though  not  absolutely  bound,  by  the  construction  placed 
upon  the  laws  of  a  State  by  their  courts  of  last  resort,  following 
the  rule  adopted  by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court. 

3.  Any  statement  in  the  opinion  in  the  case  of  Margaret  L. 
Thomas  (9  P.  D.,  139)  which  conflicts  with  said  rule  is  hereby 
modified. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  375 

Evidence — Presumption     of     death — Marriage,     (Mary     Coburn, 
widow,  11  P.  D.,  43.) 

The  claimant  married  the  soldier  in  1883  in  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois. Her  former  husband  had  been  absent  for  a  period  much 
greater  than  seven  years.  His  absence  was  continuous  and  unex- 
plained, and  no  intelligence  of  his  existence  has  ever  been  re- 
ceived. 

Held:  The  presumption  is  in  favor  of  the  validity  of  the 
second  marriage. 

Marriage — Evidence — Presumption  of  death.     (Wesley  Buckler  et 
al.,  minors,  11  P.  D.,  234.) 

1.  Claimant's  first  husband  left  her  about  the  year  1856,  without 
an}^  ostensible  reason,  except  to  go  up  the  Wabash  River,  and  has 
never  been  heard  of  by  his  relatives  and  friends  since.  There 
is  no  evidence  in  the  case  that  would  justify  the  conclusion  that 
said  husband  intended  to  forsake,  renounce,  or  relinquish  his 
concern  or  interest  for  said  claimant,  and  it  is  held  that  under  the 
act  of  March  13,  1896,  the  -facts  warrant  the  presumption  that 
said  first  husband  was  dead  at  the  date  of  claimant's  marriage  to 
soldier,  ten  years  after  the  departure  of  said  first  husband,  and 
that  said  marriage  was  valid  and  she  is  his  legal  widow. 

2.  Where  no  record  of  deaths  is  in  existence  in  a  particular 
jurisdiction,  testimony  of  two  credible  witnesses  as  to  the  date  of 
death  of  a  person,  giving  good  reasons  for  fixing  a  certain  date  as 
the  date  of  such  person's  death,  will  be  accepted  as  sufficient 
proof  of  the  date  thereof. 

Marriage — Evidence — Presumptions.     (Nora  O'Brien,  widow,   12 
P.  D.,  32.) 

It  appears  by  record  evidence  that  claimant  was  married 
to  the  soldier  by  a  parish  priest  in  Auburn,  N.  Y.,  Januar}^  9, 
1868,  and  lived  with  him  as  his  wife  until  his  death  in  1887. 
There  is  evidence  in  the  case  tending  to  show  that  he  had  pre- 
viously been  married  to  one  Ann  Rivers,  who  has  not  been  seen 
or  heard  of  in  the  community  where  she  lived  since  1863,  and 
when  last  heard  of  was  in  the  almshouse  of  Erie  County,  N.  Y., 
where,  it  is  reported,  she  died  in  December,  1863. 

It  is  held  that  the  circumstantial  evidence  in  the  case  gives 
rise  to  the  inference,  with  moral  and  reasonable  certainty,  that 
the  first  wife  was  dead  at  the  time  of  claimant's  marriage  to  the 
soldier,  and  such  marriage  was  legal. 
Marriage  and  divorce — Evidence — Presumption  of  death.  (Mar- 
garette  E.  Harnden,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  278.) 

The  fact  that  claimant's  husband  deserted  her  in  1849,  of 
itself,  does  not  raise  the  presumption  that  he  was  dead  in  1861, 


376  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

when  she  married  soldier  (Rosie  Wilson,  6  P.  D.,  133;  Pythia 
Ann  Sullivan,  7  P.  D.,  512;  Mary  A.  Warburton,  7  P.  d!,  49; 
and  Helen  L.  Pepper,  9  P.  D.,  500)  ;  but  the  fact  of  claimant's 
marriage  to  the  soldier  in  1860  or  1861,  under  the  belief  that  her 
first  husband  Avas  dead,  her  continued  cohabitation  with  him  as 
his  wife  until  his  death,  thirty-seven  or  thirty-eight  years  there- 
after, the  rearing  of  a  family  of  children  recognized  by  the 
soldier  and  herself  as  their  legitimate  children,  and  the  fact 
the  first  husband  was  never  heard  of  since  1849,  are  circumstances 
from  which  it  may  be  inferred  that  said  first  husband  was  dead 
when  claimant  married  soldier  in  1860  or  1861 ;  and  that  the  pre- 
sumption, from  the  facts,  of  innocence  and  morality  outweigh 
the  presumption  of  the  continuance  of  the  life  of  said  first  hus- 
band. Rider,  and  claimant's  marriage  to  the  soldier  was  legal. 

The  case  of  Margaret  J.  Anderson  (4  P.  D.,  67)  is  overruled. 
Marriage    in    Kentucky  —  Impediment  —  Presumption    of    death. 
(Amy  Collins,  12  P.  D.,  292.) 

The  claimant's  former  husband  appearing  to  have  been  absent 
and  unheard  of  for  five  years  preceding  her  marriage  to  the 
soldier,  with  whom  she  lived  for  thirty-six  years  thereafter,  such 
remarriage  was  valid  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Kentucky, 
where  contracted,  and  she  is  the  soldier's  lawful  widow. 
Marriage  and,  divorce  —  Impediment  —  Evidence  —  Presumption. 
(Elizabeth  Schneider,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  348.) 

Appellant  was  married  to  the  soldier  in  accordance  with  the 
law  of  Ohio  in  1886,  and  lived  with  him  in  the  State  of  Michi- 
gan as  his  wife  until  his  death  in  1895.  One  witness  has  testi- 
fied that  soldier  was  previously  married  to  a  woman  in  1865, 
who  left  him  in  1871,  and  had  not  since  been  heard  of.  A  special 
examination  failed  to  find  any  trace  of  said  alleged  prior  wife. 

Held:  That  the  mere  presumption  of  life  is  not  sufficient  to 
overcome  those  presumptions  which  surround  the  celebration  of 
a  marriage,  and  under  the  facts  as  disclosed  claimant  is  recog- 
nized as  the  widow  of  soldier. 
Marriage  —  Presumption  of  death  —  Evidence.  (Eliza  Breezley, 
widow,  14  P.  D.,  442.) 

Soldier,  about  1856,  married  Catherine  Vernon,  from  whom 
he  was  separated,  but  without  divorce,  in  1857,  when  she  left  the 
State  of  Illinois,  where  the  parties  resided,  for  Missouri.  She 
was  never  afterwards  heard  of,  except  by  general  rumor  to  the 
effect  that  she  died  in  1860.  In  1869  he  married  the  claimant  by 
ceremony. 

Held:  That  under  the  decisions  of  the  supreme  court  of  Illi- 
nois presumption  of  death  of  Catherine  attaches  in  favor  of  the 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  377 

validity  of  the  soldier's  marriage  to  the  claimant,  who  is  there- 
fore his  widow. 

13.  Presumption  of  Divorce. 

Marriage  and  divorcee — Evidence — Presumption.  (Louisa  C.  Ger- 
main, widow,  11  P.  D.,  66.) 

Soldier  married  Martha  Pinkney  in  1841,  and  they  lived  to- 
gether as  husband  and  wife  until  a  short  time  before  the  civil 
Avar,  Avhen  he  separated  from  her.  He  married  claimant  in  June, 
1871,  and  also  had  a  second  marriage  ceremony  performed  in 
1888. 

Martha,  the  first  wife,  died  June  22,  1897,  and  the  soldier  died 
November  30,  1897.  No  evidence  of  a  divorce  between  soldier 
and  his  first  wife,  Martha,  is  shown,  but  it  is  held  that  the  pre- 
sumption is,  in  the  absence  of  proof  to  the  contrary,  that  said 
soldier  had  been  divorced  from  his  first  wife  at  the  time  of  his 
second  marriage  to  claimant.  (Citing  Jennette  Burton,  9  P.  I)., 
31 ;  Hull  v.  Kawles,  26  Miss.,  471 ;  Holmes  v.  Holmes,  6  La.,  463; 
Blanchard  o.  Lambert  et  al.,  43  Iowa,  228 ;  Carroll  v.  Carroll  et 
al.,  20  Texas,  731,  and  Patterson  ik  Gaines,  6  Howard,  550.) 

Marriage  and  divorce — Evidence — Presumption^^ — Proof.  (Louisa 
C.  Germain  and  Mary  C.  Orr,  11  P.  D.,  131.) 

1.  There  is  no  conflict  between  the  decisions  in  the  Germain 
and  Orr  cases. 

2.  In  the  Germain  case  it  was  held  that  the  presumption  was, 
in  the  absence  of  proof  to  the  contrary,  that  soldier  had  been 
divorced  from  his  first  wife  at  the  time  of  his  second  marriage  to 
the  claimant;  but  such  presumption  is  rebuttable. 

3.  In  the  Orr  case  the  presumption  of  divorce  was  rebutted  by 
the  evidence  of  the  first  wife  and  the  records  of  the  court  show- 
ing that  no  divorce  had  been  procured  as  claimed. 

Mamage — Divorce — Evidence — Presumption — Act  June  27^  1890. 
(Annie  P.  Ryerson,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  497.) 

Soldier  married  Elizabeth  P.  Osman,  about  1855,  with  whom 
he  lived  until  she  ran  away  with  one  Welch,  while  soldier  was  in 
the  service.     Elizabeth  has  been  unheard  of  for  many  years. 

Soldier  married  claimant  in  1868,  and  they  lived  together  as 
man  and  wife  continuously  until  his  death  in  July,  1897. 

AVhile  no  divorce  between'  soldier  and  Elizabeth  has  been 
shown  by  primary  evidence,  yet  under  the  decisions  of  courts  in 
Missouri,  where  these  parties  resided,  a  divorce  will  be  presumed 
in  favor  of  the  validity  of  the  second  marriage.  (See  case  of 
Letitia  C.  A.  Spencer,  13  P.  D.,  68.)  Case  of  Theresia  Schreve 
(9  P.  D.,  78)  overruled. 


378  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

14.  Remarriage  Prior  to  June  27,  1890. 

Marriage — Remarriage — Act   June   27^    1890.     (Lucy    P.    Potter, 
widow,  9  P.  D.,  251.) 

The  evidence  in  this  claim  shows  that  claimant  remarried  sub- 
sequent to  the  death  of  soldier  and  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act 
of  June  27,  1890,  and  fails  to  show  that  said  second  marriage 
was  void  or  invalid.  In  the  absence  of  direct  proof  that  her 
said  second  husband  had  a  wife  living  from  whom  he  was  not  di- 
vorced at  the  date  of  his  marriage  to  claimant,  or  that  his  former 
marriage  was  void,  claimant  has  no  title  to  pension  under  said 
act. 

Marriage  and  divorce — Act  of  June  ^7,  1890.     (Martha  J.  Kirk- 
land,  alleged  widow,  11  P.  D.,  73.) 

Claimant,  the  widow  of  Samuel  B.  Kirkland,  married  Abra- 
ham Jackson  in  1865;  Jackson  obtained  a  divorce,  a  vinculo, 
from  her  in  1881. 

Held:  The  divorce  decree  did  not  put  her  back,  as  to  the  rights 
under  the  law,  as  the  widow  of  Kirkland.  She  forever  destroyed 
her  status  as  the  widow  of  Kirkland  when  she  entered  into  a 
valid  marriage  contract  with  Jackson. 

15.  Slave  Marriages. 

Marriage  of  slaves — Emancipatioyi — Evidence.     (Marie  L.   Boss, 
alleged  widow,  10  P.  D.,  36.) 

It  being  material  to  a  proper  determination  of  the  question  as 
to  the  validity  of  the  claimant's  marriage  to  the  sailor  to  know 
whether  the  latter  died  before  or  after  slaves  were  emancipated 
by  the  adoption  of  the  thirteenth  amendment  to  the  Constitution, 
and  the  evidence  on  that  point  being  conflicting,  the  action  is 
set  aside  and  the  case  remanded  for  further  inquiry — by  special 
examination  if  necessary. 

Mairiages  of  slaves — Legitimacy — Section  Jf705.     (Minors  of  Wil- 
liam Toller,  10  P.  D.,  75.) 

Only  the  minor  children  of  a  colored  soldier  by  the  woman 
with  whom  he  lived  in  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife  up  to  the 
date  of  his  enlistment,  or  to  the  date  of  his  death  if  he  died  sub- 
sequent to  his  service,  are  entitled  to  a  minors'  pension  under 
section  4705,  Revised  Statutes. 

Marriage — Colored    and    hidian    soldiers    in    Kentucky.     (Maria 
Merritt,  colored  widow,  10  P.  D.,  157.) 

A  claimant,  as  widow  of  a  colored  soldier,  is  pensionable  under 
the  general  law,  and  is  entitled  to  his  accrued  pension,  upon 
proving  her  marriage,  as  prescribed  in  section  4705,  Revised 
Statutes;  but  in  order  to  be  pensionable  under  the  act  of  June 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  379 

27,  1890,  she  must  prove  a  marriage  which  is  valid  under  the 
laws  of  the  place  where  they  resided  at  the  time  of  marriage  or 
when  the  right  to  pension  accrued. 

A  slave  marriage  in  Kentucky  is  not  valid  unless  declared  in 
conformity  with  the  act  of  February  14,  1866,  of  the  legislature 
of  that  State. 

Marriage    and    divorce — Slaves — Impedinient.     (Amanda     Fane, 
now  Smith,  as  widow,  10  P.  D.,  254.) 

Claimant  was  pensioned  as  the  widow  of  the  soldier  who  died 
in  the  service,  but  her  name  was  dropped  from  the  rolls  upon  her 
remarriage  by  a  ceremony  with  one  Smith,  alias  Lyons.  She 
now  claims  a  continuance  of  pension  on  the  ground  that  said 
Smith  had  a  wife  living  at  the  time  of  his  marriage  to  her.  The 
evidence  shows  that  Smith  had  a  slave  wife  living,  with  whom 
he  had  not  lived  for  some  years  prior  to  his  marriage  to  claim- 
ant, but,  having  married  claimant  according  to  the  forms  of  law, 
this  former  relation  with  Anna  Parker  had  no  legal  effect  on  his 
marriage  with  claimant,  and  she  was  therefore  his  legal  wife. 

Marriage    of   slaves   in   Missouri.      (Garrison   Pennoyer,    alleged 
father,  10  P.  D.,  362.) 

At  the  date  of  the  alleged  marriage  of  claimant  to  the  mother 
of  soldier  in  the  State  of  Missouri  both  were  slaves,  and  so  con- 
tinued up  to  the  day  of  the  mother's  death  in  1858. 

Under  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  John- 
son t).  Johnson  (45  Mo.,  595),  their  alleged  marriage  was  void. 

Marriage  of  slaves  in  Kentucky — Act  June  ^7,  1890.     (Mary  Rid- 
dle, widow,  10  P.  D.,  441.) 

This  appellant  and  the  deceased  soldier  were  colored  persons 
residing  in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  and  had  been  married  while 
in  a  state  of  slavery  in  the  year  1852,  in  accordance  with  the 
custom  of  slaves,  but  after  their  emancipation  had  taken  no  steps 
to  ratify  and  legalize  their  subsisting  slave  marriage  in  the  man- 
ner required  by  the  statutes  of  that  State. 

Held:  That  the  appellant  can  not  be  recognized  as  the  widow 
of  the  soldier  and  is  not  entitled  to  pension  as  such  under  the 
provisions  of  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890.  (See 
decisions  in  cases  of  Nannie  Roach,  7  P.  D.,  80,  and  Lettie  Haw- 
kins, 8  P.  D.,  22.) 

Marriage  of  slaves — Laws  of  Virginia.     (Frank  Fitchett,  father, 
11  P.  D.,  167.) 

Claimant  was  one  of  four  slaves  who  cohabited  with  one  Me- 
linda,  also  a  slave,  she  bearing  three  of  her  pseudo  husbands,  in- 
cluding claimant,  a  child.  The  masters  of  Melinda  and  claimant 
refused  to  allow  a  ceremony  of  marriage  to  be  performed. 


380  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Held:  The  connection  between  claimant  and  Melinda  was 
illicit,  the  evidence  showing  that  there  was  no  mutual  intent  on 
their  part  to  consummate  a  bona  fide  slave  marriage. 

The  act  of  February  27,  1866,  of  the  assembly  of  Virginia,  re- 
ferred only  to  such  colored  persons  who  had  undertaken  and 
agreed,  bona  fide,  to  occupy  the  relation  to  each  other  of  husband 
and  wife.  Mutual  intent  was  a  sine  qua  non  to  a  bona  fide  moral 
matrimonial  relation  between  slaves. 

The  decision  in  the  case  of  Daniel  Bird  (10  P.  D.,  105)  is  re- 
affirmed. 
Marriage  of  colored  persons — Section  Ji705^  Revised  Statutes — Evi- 
dence.    (Lucinda  Harris,  alleged  widow,  11  P.  D.,  181.) 

A  claimant  who  relies  upon  the  rule  of  evidence  provided  in 
section  4705,  Revised  Statutes,  must  show,  either  that  she  lived 
with  the  soldier  up  to  date  of  enlistment,  wdien  the  latter  died  in 
the  service,  or,  if  otherwise,  that  she  lived  with  him  up  to  the 
date  of  death. 
Marriage — Colored  persons — Emancipation  proclamation.  ( Rose 
E.,  alleged  widow  of  Israel  Smith,  11  P.  D.,  443.) 

Appellant,  prior  to  the  time  of  her  alleged  marriage  to  soldier, 
married  one  William  Norris,  in  1864,  who  was  at  the  time  a  sol- 
dier in  the  United  States  Army,  stationed  at  Portsmouth,  Va., 
in  territory  in  possession  of  the  United  States  forces  in  which 
the  President's  emancipation  proclamation  of  January  1,  1863, 
was  effective,  and  claimant  was  also  in  said  territory  serving  Avith 
the  United  States  forces  as  laundress,  the  ceremony  of  marriage 
being  performed  by  the  chaplain  of  soldier's  regiment.  As  it  is 
shown  that  said  Norris  was  still  living  at  the  time  of  claimant's 
alleged  marriage  to  Smith,  and  no  divorce  being  shown,  said 
marriage  was  void. 
Marriage  of  slaves  in  Kentucky — Act  J%ine  27^  1890.  (Eliza  J. 
Ellis,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  159.) 

The  appellant  and  the  deceased  soldier  were  colored  persons 
residing  in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  and  had  been  married  while 
in  a  state  of  slavery  in  the  year  1862,  in  accordance  with  the 
custom  of  slaves,  but  after  their  emancipation  had  taken  no 
steps  to  ratify  and  legalize  their  subsisting  slave  marriage  in  the 
manner  required  by  the  statutes  of  that  State. 

Held:  That  the  appellant  can  not  be  recognized  as  the  widow 
of  soldier,  and  is  not  entitled  to  pension  as  such  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890.  (See 
decisions  in  cases  of  Nannie  Roach,  7  P.  D.,  80 ;  Lettie  Hawkins, 
8  P.  D.,  22;  Maria  Merritt,  10  P.  D.,  157,  and  Mary  Riddle, 
ibid.,  441.) 


I 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  381 

Marriage — Slaves  in  Kentucky.  (Martha  Maddox,  claimant,  12 
P.  D.,  447.) 

Claimant  and  soldier,  residing  in  Kentucky,  never  having  rati- 
fied their  slave  marriage,  entered  into  that  state  in  1858,  accord- 
ing to  the  act  of  July  14,  1866,  of  the  legislature  of  said  State, 
the  same  was  not  valid,  and  she  has  no  pensionable  status  as 
the  widow  of  said  soldier.  (See  cases  of  Nannie  Roach,  T  P.  D., 
80;  Mary  Riddle,  10  P.  D.,  441;  Eliza  J.  Ellis,  12  P.  D.,  159; 
Estill  V.  Rogers,  1  Bush,  Ky.,  62,  and  Maria  Merritt,  10  P.  D., 
157.) 

Marriage — Maryland — Slaves — Act  June  '27^  1890.  (Rebecca 
Reed,  alleged  widow,  13  P.  D.,  70.) 

Appellant  and  soldier  cohabited  as  slaves  until  soldier's  en- 
listment. When  soldier  returned  from  his  service  he  was  accom- 
panied by  one  Jane,  who  it  is  claimed  was  married  to  him  by  a 
ceremony  in  North  Carolina;  and  he  and  Jane  cohabited  as 
husband  and  wife  until  his  death. 

In  the  State  of  Maryland,  where  this  appellant  and  soldier 
resided  during  their  cohabitation,  no  marriage  is  legal  without 
a  religious  celebration,  and  as  claimant  admits  none  was  had  in 
her  case,  she  is  not  the  legal  widow  of  the  soldier  and  is  not 
pensionable  under  the  act  of  June.  27,  1890. 

Marriage — Slaves — Laws  of  Texas — Act  of  August  7, 1882.  (Lou- 
isa Davis,  as  widow.  13  P.  D.,  129.) 

If  parties  having  married  according  to  custom  w^hile  in  a  state 
of  servitude  continue  to  live  together  as  husband  and  wife  after 
their  emancipation,  it  being  apparent  that  they  continue  the 
marital  tie  after  their  legal  incapacity  to  contract  was  removed, 
and  if  all  the  usual  evidences  of  a  common-law  marriage  existed 
after  emancipation,  such  parties  were,  legally,  husband  and 
wife  in  the  State  of  Texas;  and  under  such  a  state  of  facts  the 
constitution  of  1869  and  the  act  of  August  15,  1870,  have  no 
bearing. 

Marriaqe — Slaves — Laws  of  Tennessee — Act  August  7, 1882.  (Na- 
than'Yerwood,  father,  13  P.  D.,  140.) 

Under  the  law^s  of  the  State  of  Tennessee  a  slave  marriage 
was  legal  and  valid  and  the  issue  thereof  legitimate.  (3  Heisk., 
666;    91  Tenn.,  97.) 

Marriage — Slaves  in  Louisiana — Evidence — Adulterous  cohabi- 
tation.    Hester  A.  Inghams,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  173.) 

Claimant  and  soldier,  slaves,  lived  together,  with  their  master's 
consent,  as  husband  and  wife,  for  several  j^ears  prior  and  up  to 
said  soldier's  enlistment.     Soldier  died  in  the  service  subsequent 


382  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

to  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of  Louisiana  of  July  23,  180-1, 
after  which  claimant  cohabited  with  several  men,  one  of  them, 
George  Pierce,  for  thirteen  years,  both  acknowledging  and 
claiming  to  be  husband  and  wife. 

Held:  1.  That  her  marriage  to  soldier  is  sufficiently  proved 
under  section  4705  of  the  Revised  Statutes  and  the  laws  of 
Louisiana,  and  on  his  death  she  became  his  widow. 

2.  That  her  adulterous  cohabitation  prior  to  the  passage  of 
the  act  of  August  7,  1882,  except  with  Pierce,  w^as  no  bar  to 
widow's  pension;    and 

3.  That  her  cohabitation  with  Pierce  as  his  Avife  for  thirteen 
years,  during  which  time  they  Avere  recognized  by  their  friends 
and  neighbors  as  husband  and  wife,  will  be  taken  as  evidence 
that  they  were  married  from  the  commencement  of  siich  cohabi- 
tation, and  her  pension  should  cease  at  that  date. 

Marriage — Colored  persons — Evidence — Presumptions.    ( Charlotte 
Gamble,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  156.) 

The  proof  of  the  due  and  formal  celebration,  in  the  State  of 
Texas,  of  the  marriage  of  this  claimant,  an  African  or  of  Afri- 
can blood,  to  the  soldier  herein  raises  the  presumption  that  he 
also  was  an  African  or  of  African  blood,  the  statutes  of  that 
State  making  miscegenation  a  criminal  offense,  and  prima  facie 
establishes  the  validity  of  their  marriage,  which  is  not  overcome 
by  the  evidence  herein  tending  to  show  he  Avas  not  of  such  blood. 

Marriage — Section    1^705^    Revised    Statutes — E  indence—C  olored 
persons.     (Adeline  Andrews,  minor,  14  P.  D.,  288.) 

As  the  marital  relations  of  claimant's  mother  and  the  soldier 
did  not  continue  up  to  the  time  of  the  latter's  enlistment,  she 
can  not  be  deemed  the  lawful  child  of  the  said  soldier  under  the 
provisions  of  section  4705,  Revised  Statutes. 

Marriage — Slaves — Laws    of    Florida — Act    of    June    27^    1890. 
(Bettie  Rankins,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  383.) 

The  slave  marriage  between  claimant  and  sailor  Avas  of  no 
force  or  effect  under  the  laAvs  of  Florida,  Avhere  they  resided, 
there  having  been  no  cohabitation  between  them  after  their 
emancipation. 

Marriage  —  Slaves  —  Remarriage  —  Evidence.        ( Christie      Ann 
Thompson  as  widow  of  Lewis  Robinson,  14  P.  D.,  436.) 

The  evidence  shoAvs  the  claimant  remarried  at  some  time  after 
the  soldier's  death,  but  fails  to  show  Avhen  such  marriage  Avas 
contracted.  Her  claim,  therefore,  must  stand  rejected  for  lack 
of  proof  of  a  material  fact  as  to  her  pensionable  status,  viz,  the 
date  of  said  remarriage. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  383 

Marriage — Slai'es — Laws  of  Missouri^-Evidence.     (Minors  of  John 
Bluford,  14  P.  D.,  491.) 

A  slave  marriage  was  absolutely  void  in  Missouri  unless  rati- 
fied subsequent  to  emancipation  of  the  parties. 

The  question  of  ratification  of  such  a  marriage  is  one  of  fact, 
to  be  determined  from  all  the  facts,  circumstances,  and  conditions 
in  the  case,  as  shown  by  the  evidence. 
Marriage — Slaves — South  Carolina  laws — Evidence.     (Celia  Rob- 
inson, Avidow,  14  P.  D.,.53T.) 

While  slaves,  in  South  Carolina,  lacked  civil  capacity  to  effect 
a  marriage  in  its  contractual  sense,  still  there  Avas  a  distinction 
between  a  "  moral  marriage,"  entered  into  with  the  master's  con- 
sent, and  an  illicit  and  unlicensed  sexual  connection. 

The  act  of  December  21,  1865,  did  not  pretend  to  institute  a 
new  relation  between  slaves  cohabiting  as  husband  and  wife, 
but  merely  "  established  "  (i.  e.,  confirmed  or  ratified)  a  marriage 
relation  previously  existing,  lacking  only  the  element  of  con- 
tractual capacity  for  its  perfect  consummation. 

Where  slaves,  between  whom  a  moral  marriage  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  owner  had  been  perfected  prior  to  emancipation,  were 
living  together  as  husband  and  wife  on  December  21,  1865,  the 
moral  marriage  was  ratified  and  established,  with  all  the  civil 
effects  of  a  marriage  duly  celebrated  between  freemen.  But  the 
evidence  must  point  unmistakably  to  a  prior  existing  moral  mar- 
riage as  distinguished  from  an  unauthorized  and  illicit  connec- 
tion between  the  parties. 
Marriage — Slai^es — Laws  of  Mississippi.  (Betsey  Jackson,  widow. 
15  P.'  D.,  11.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  soldier  and  the  claimant  lived  to- 
gether as  husband  and  wife  according  to  slave  custom  from  about 
1859  until  he  enlisted  in  the  Volunteer  Army,  in  which  he  served 
from  December  10,  1863,  to  February  5,  1866,  when  he  returned 
and  lived  with  her  as  her  husband,  their  marital  relations  being 
recognized  in  the  community  until  the  spring  of  1869,  when  he 
deserted  her. 

Held:  That  the  soldier  was  living  with  the  claimant  as  lier 
husband  November  25,  1865,  and  that  section  3  of  the  act  of 
November  25,  1865,  of  the  legislature  of  Mississippi  validated 
their  slave  marriage,  their  intent  to  live  as  husband  and  wife 
being  shown  by  his  conduct  in  returning  to  her  after  his  dis- 
charge, and  their  cohabitation  as  husband  and  wife  and  recog 
nition  as  such  in  the  community. 
Marriage — Tennessee  laws — Slaves — Evidence.  (Adaline  Harris, 
alleged  widow,  15  P.  D.,  30.) 

Soldier,  a  colored  person,  commenced  living  with  Susan,  as  her 


384  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

husband,  in  1865,  in  the*  State  of  Tennessee,  at  a  time  when  he 
was  in  the  military  service  of  the  United  States,  and  she  was,  in 
fact,  a  free  woman;  said  cohabitation  continuing  until  1872. 
He  married  claimant  under  the  statute,  in  Tennessee,  in  1878, 
living  with  her  as  her  husband  till  his  death  in  1898.  Susan 
died  in  1880. 

Held:  The  act  of  the  legislature  of  Tennessee,  dated  May  26, 
1866,  does  not  apply. 

The  marital  union  of  soldier  and  Susan  constituted  a  valid  and 
legal  marriage. 

The  facts  fail  to  show  a  lawful  marriage  between  soldier  and 
claimant  after  the  impediment  was  removed-  by  the  death  of 
Susan.     (Jarnigan  v.  Jarnigan,  12  Lea,  293.) 

Marriage — Sla, ves — Tennessee — Decree  of  nullity — Jurisdiction — 
Evidence — Restoration.  (Amanda  Fane  alias  Lyons,  insane 
widow,  15  P.  D.,  503.) 

1.  While  the  Department,  in  the  adjudication  of  pension 
claims,  giv^es  the  effect  to  a  decree  of  nullity  obtained  out  of  a 
local  court  of  competent  jurisdiction,  in  a  suit  inter  partes  during 
the  lifetime  of  the  parties,  that  it  does  to  a  decree  of  divorce 
under  the  conditions  determined  in  the  case  of  Melissa  Boyd  (14 
P.  D.,  279),  a  decree  of  nullity  obtained  either  in  a  direct  suit 
for  nullity  after  the  death  of  one  of  the  parties  to  the  marriage, 
or  obtained  collaterally  in  another  proceeding,  is  not  conclusive 
upon  this  Department,  unless  the  statutes  of  the  place  of  domi- 
cile expressly  provide  for  the  maintenance  of  a  direct  suit  for 
nullity  after  the  death  of  one  of  the  parties  to  the  alleged  mar- 
riage. 

2.  Claimant,  while  the  widow  of  the  soldier  and  a  pensioner 
under  the  general  law,  was  ceremonially  married  in  1865,  in 
Tennessee,  to  one  James  Lyons,  or  Smith,  a  former  slave.  Said 
Lyons  and  one  Amy  were  married  while  in  a  state  of  servitude, 
with  the  consent  of  their  owners,  and  cohabited  in  Tennessee  as 
husband  and  wife.  They  were  never  divorced  by  the  act  or  con- 
sent of  the  owners  during  slavery  nor  by  the  State  after  the 
attainment  of  freedom.  Amy  survived  Lyons,  who  died  in  1875. 
It  is  held  that  said  marriage  subsisted  at  the  time  of  his  at- 
tempted marriage  to  claimant  and  operated  as  a  legal  impedi- 
ment thereto. 

3.  A  slave  marriage  in  Tennessee,  entered  into  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  owners,  was  a  valid  marriage  for  all  purposes  per- 
taining to  pensions.  Such  marriages  could  not  be  lawfully  dis- 
solved by  the  acts  of  the  parties  while  in  a  state  of  slavery.  The 
consent  or  the  act  of  the  master  was  essential  to  a  lawful  disso- 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  385 

liition  of  the  union.  Nor  could  a  former  slave,  by  his  own  act, 
annul  such  a  marriage  after  emancipation  and  enter  into  other 
matrimonial  unions.  The  act  of  May  26,  1866,  merely  applied 
to  such  slave  marriages  as  had  been  lawfully  contracted,  and 
was  simply  declaratory  as  to  the  validity  of  such  marriages, 
without  reference  to  any  personal  act  of  ratification  after  eman- 
cipation, or  without  regard  to  the  fact  that  said  parties  were  liv- 
ing together  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  said  act.  Following 
Brown  v.  Cheatham  (91  Tenn.,  97). 

4.  The  case  of  Amanda  Fane  (10  P.  D.,  254)  is  overruled  in  all 
respects;  the  case  of  Margaret  Gilbert  (8  P.  D.,  249)  is  overruled 
in  part  and  modified  in  part;  and  the  case  of  Reuben  Burton  (11 
P.  D.,  294)  is  modified  in  part. 

16.  Widows'  Pension  Act  March  19,  1886. 

Marriage — Widou'^s  pension — Act  March  19,  1886.     (Wilhelmina 
K.  Monteton,  widow,  10  P.  D.,  12.) 

As  claimant  was  married  to  soldier  subsequent  to  the  passage 
of  the  act  of  March  19,  1886,  viz,  on  September  4, 1891,  the  allow- 
ance of  the  rate  of  $8  was  proper.  The  fact  that  appellant  had 
a  meretricious  relation  with  the  soldier  prior  to  the  passage  of 
said  act  does  not  entitle  her  to  the  rate  of  $12  per  month. 

MARYLAND  LAWS. 

See  Legitimacy:  No.  2  (11  P.  D.,  278). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2(r)   (10  P.  D.,  304,  431;  13  P.  D.,  49;  14  P.  D., 

530,  and  15  P.  D.,  4G4)  ;  No.  15  (13  P.  D.,  70). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  9,  10,  11,  13,  and  14  P.  D. 
See  10  P.  D.,  113,  307 ;  11  P.  D.,  279,  280,  281 ;  13  P.  D.,  51,  52,  73 ; 

14  P.  D.,  348. 

MASSACHUSETTS  LAWS. 

See  Divorce:  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  434)  ;  No.  6  (12  P.  D.,  445;  14  P.  D., 

438). 
See  Marriage:  No.  2(s)   (11  P.  D.,  114;  14  P.  D.,  45G ;  15  P.  D.,  402). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  11,  12,  14,  15  P.  D. 

MATERIAL  SERVICE. 

See  Attorneys:  No.  10  (14  P.  D.,  273)  ;  No.  11   (9  P.  D.,  137;  11 

P.  D.,  429,  490 ;  12  P.  D.,  221 ;  15  P.  D.,  492). 
See  Fee  :  No.  6  (9  P.  D.,  Ill ;  10  P.  D.,  144). 

MASTERS  AND  MATES. 

See  Service:  No.  7  (15  P.  D.,  366). 
13070—06 25 


386  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

MEANS  OF  SUPPORT. 

See  Dependent  Parents  :  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  297;  12  P.  D.,  129,  131,  nr.i  ; 

472;    13  P.  D.,  241,  432;    14  P.  D.,  267,  271,  294). 
See  Dependent  Widow  :  No.  1   (9  P.  D.,  1,  2,  76,  249,  254,  299,  318, 

320,  502;  10  P.  D.,  9,  67,  326;  13  P.  D.,  125;  15  P.  D.,  257,  329: 

No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  40)  ;    No.  3  (13  P.  D.,  31)  ;    No.  4  (12  P.  D.,  2(J(; ; 

13  P.  D.,  448 ;  14  P.  D.,  80,  281,  360 ;  15  P.  D.,  127,  203,  324). 
See  Dependent  Brothers  and  Sisters  :  No.  1  (14  P.  D.,  4). 

MEDICAL  REFEREE. 

See  Jurisdiction  :  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  465). 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  52). 

See  Practice:  No.  27  (13  P.  D.,  465). 

MEDICAL  EXAMINATIONS. 

References. 

See  Disability:  No.  2  (10  P.  D.,  276). 

See  Jurisdiction:  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  348). 

See  Practice  :  Nos.  3,  6  (9  P.  D.,  71 ;  10  P.  D.,  271). 

Index. 

1.  When  certificate  of,  is  null  and  void. 

2.  Order  74. 

1.  When  Certificate  of,  is  Null  and  Void. 

Medical  examination — Examining  surgeons.     (Isaac  Goodin,  9  P. 
D.,261.) 

A  certificate  of  a  medical  examination,  not  sworn  to,  made  by  a 
person  who  had  ceased  to  be  an  examining  surgeon  or  a  member 
of  a  board  of  examining  surgeons,  can  not  be  considered  the  cer- 
tificate of  a  civil  surgeon,  but  is  without  authority  of  law  and 
null  and  void ;  and  a  claimant,  having  submitted  to  such  exami- 
nation under  protest,  should  have  the  benefit  of  an  examination 
by  a  duly  authorized  examining  surgeon  or  a  board  of  examining 
surgeons. 

2.  Order  74. 

Medical   examinations — Commissioner   of  Pensions — Order    74 — 
New  examinatio7is.     (Oliver  C.  Whitehurst,  14  P.  D.,  450.) 
.   The  rate  of  pension  now^  received  by  the  claimant  ($8)  appears 
proportionate  to  the  degree  of  inability  shown  for  earning  a 
support  by  manual  labor. 

Some  discretion  as  to  the  frequency  and  propriety  of  ordering 
medical  examinations  for  claimants  is  properly  vested  in  the 
Commissioner  of  Pensions  as  prescribed  by  order  No.  74,  ap- 
proved October  21,  1903. 


» 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  387 

MENINGITIS. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  220). 

MENTAL  DEFICIENCY. 

See  Helpless  Minor:  No.  3  (12  P.  D.,  365;  10  P.  D.,  22,  224,  3G8 ;  15 
P.  D.,  407,  478). 

MEXICAN  WAR. 

See  Bounty  Land:  No.  3  (15  P.  D„  561). 

See  Commencement:  Nos.  9,  10  (14  P.  D.,  420,  40). 

See  Dependent  Widow  :  No.  5  (10  P.  D.,  28;  15  P.  D.,  :^24). 

See  Disability:  No.  11  (9  P.  D.,  341). 

See  Powell's  Battalion:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  172). 

See  Service:  Nos.  4,  11,  14    (9  P.  D.,  28,  44,  108,  369:  10  P.  D.,  139, 

425 ;  11  P.  D.,  21,  110,  163,  218 ;  14  P.  D.,  357 ;  15  P.  D.,  158,  544 ;  9 

P.  D.,  96,  507). 

MICHIGAN  LAWS. 

See  Dependent  Parents  :  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  297). 

See  Divorce:  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  303). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (t)  (14  P.  D.,  417,  554;  15  P.  D.,  240). 

See  10  P.  D.,  195. 

See  Tables,  State  Statutes,  for  10,  11,  12,  13  P.  D. 


MILITIA. 


See  Service:  No.  10  (9  P.  D.,  21,  422,  462;  10  P.  D.,  8,  19,  270;  11 
P.  D.,  12;  12  P.  D.,  367,  385,  521). 

MILITARY  AGE. 

See  Age:  No.  2  (11  P.  D.,  193,  240,  286). 

See  Desertion:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  80)  ;  No.  4(g)   (15  P.  D.,  8)  ;  No.  5 

(9  P.  D.,  488;  11  P.  D.,  193;  12  P.  D.,  137)  ;  No.  4(b)    (15  P.  D., 

525). 

MINOR  GRANDCHILDREN. 

See  Accrued  Pension:  No.  3  (9  P.  D.,  393). 

MINORS. 

References. 

See  Abandonment:  No.  2  (7  P.  D.,  437;  8  P.  D.,  42). 

See  Accrued  Pension  :  Nos.  1,  2,  3  (9  P.  D.,  8,  276,  393). 

See  Adulterous  Cohabitation:  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  48). 

See  Age:  Nos.  1,  2,  3  (11  P.  D.,  179,  193,  240,  286;  12  P.  D.,  511). 

See  Commencement:  No.  1   (9  P.  D.,  189,  226;  11  P.  D.,  431;  15  P. 

D.,  79). 
See  Declarations:  No.  8  (14  P.  D.,  7). 
See  Desertion:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  80)  ;  No.  4(g)   (15  P.  D.,  8)  ;  No.  5 

(9  P.  D.,  488;  11  P.  D.,  193;  12  P.  D.,  137). 


888  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  1   (15  P.  D.,  82,  382)  ;  No.  12  (13  P. 

D.,  422). 
See  Estoppel:  No.  4  (15  P.  D.,  47). 
See  Fee:  Nos.  1«  and  22  (11  P.  D.,  496;  14  P.  D.,  199). 
See  Fee  Agreement:  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  150). 
See  Guardians:  No.  2  (12- P.  D.,  1). 
See  Helpless  Minor:  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4   (9  P.  D.,  9,  26,  353,  452;  10 

P.  D.,  22,  224,  368 ;  12  P.  D.,  365,  527 ;  14  I'.  D.,  331 ;  15  P.  D.,  407, 

478). 
See  Legitimacy:  Nos.  1,  4  (9  P.  D.,  199;  11  P.  D.,  40). 
See  Limitation:  Nos.  4,  6  (10  P.  D.,  417;  14  P.  D.,  24). 
See  Marriage:  No  2(b)   (15  P.  D.,  488). 

Index. 

1.  When  widow  is  iioiipeiisionable. 

2.  Under  act  June  27,  1890. 

3.  Section  4702,  Revised  Statutes. 

4.  Act  of  March  3,  1865. 

5.  Proof  of  age. 

1.  When  Widow  is  Nonpensionable. 

Minor's  pension — Act  of  June  27^  1890.     (Minors  of  John  Davis, 
9  P.  D.,  151.)  • 

The  rule  promulgated  in  the  case  of  the  minors  of  Lafayette 
Howard  (8  P.  D.,  230)  that  "the  minor  children  of  a  deceased 
soldier  have  no  title  to  pension  in  their  own  right  under  the  act 
of  June  27,  1890,  while  the  widow  of  such  soldier  is  living  and 
not  remarried,  unless  such  widow  has  forfeited  her  right  to  pen- 
sion under  the  act  of  August  7,  1882,  or  section  470(),  Revised 
Statutes,  notwithstanding  such  widow  married  such  soldier  sub- 
sequent to  the  passage  of  said  act,"  is  approved  and  adhered  to. 

Minoj'^s   pension — Construction    third  section   act  June   27,  1890. 
(Minors  of  George  W.  Douglas,  11  P.  D.,  448.) 

The  grant  in  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  June  2t,  1890,  con- 
fers title  upon  the  minor  children  of  a  soldier  separate  and 
independent  of  that  of  the  widow,  and  contingent  only  upon  her 
death  or  remarriage,  and  the  proviso  to  said  third  section 
relative  to  the  time  of  the  marriage  of  the  widow  to  the  soldier 
does  not  extend  to  or  affect  the  title  of  the  minor  children. 

Minors^  pension — Act  of  June  27.,  1890 — Widoio.     (Minors  of  James 
Still,  alias  James,  12  P.  D.,  25.) 

The  fact  that  a  deceased  soldier  left  a  widow  surviving  him 
who  has  not  remarried  is  no  bar  to  pensioning  his  minor  children 
under  16  years  of  age  under  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  June 
27,  1890,  such  widow  having  married  soldier  subsequent  to  the 
passage  of  said  act,  and  not  being  entitled  to  pension  in  her  own 
right.  Case  of  minor  of  Lafayette  G.  Howard  (8  P.  D.,  230) 
is  overruled. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  889 

2.  Under  Act  June  27,  1890. 

Minors   pension — Acts   of  June   27^   1890,   and  August   7,   1882. 
(Minor  of  Allen  Biggers,  10  P.  D.,  124.) 

Where  the  applicant  is  claiming  as  the  minor  child  of  soldier 
by  a  former  wife,  deceased,  co;itending  that  the  surviving  widow 
has  never  been  charged  with  care  and  maintenance  of  the  claim- 
ant, the  rejection  of  the  claim  on  the  ground  that  the  soldier  left 
a  surviving  widow  who  is  unmarried  is  not  responsive  to  the 
question  presented  nor  determinative  of  claimant's  right. 
Minor^s  pension — Age — Act  of  June  27, 1890.  (George  W.  Robin- 
son, minor,  12  P.  D.,  511.) 

It  appearing  that  this  appellant  was  over  the  age  of  IG  years 
at  the  date  of  the  soldier's  death,  he  has  no  title  whatever  to  pen- 
sion under  the  provisions  of  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  June 
27,  1890. 
Minor'' s   pension — Act   of   June   27,   1890 — Widows.     (Minor    of 
^  James  R.  Graves,  13  P.  D.,  148.) 

A  minor  child  of  a  deceased  soldier  is  entitled  to  pension  in  its 
own  right,  under  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  if 
such  soldier  left  no  widow  having  a  pensionable  status. 
Minor^s    pension — Act    of    June    27,    1800 — Widotos — Marriage. 
(Minor  of  Allen  B.  Pierson,  13  P.  D.,  151.) 
»  Under  the  accepted  construction  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 

the  minor  child  of  a  soldier  has  title  to  pension  in  his  own  right 
when  there  is  no  widow,  and  the  fact  that  the  parents  were  mar- 
ried after  the  passage  of  the  act  does  not  destroy  or  impair  such 
title. 
Minors— Title— Act  of  June  27,  1890— Widows.  (Christenia 
Rebenstorf,  guardian,  15  P.  D.,  28.) 

The  right  to  enforce  minor's  title  under  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  where  marriage  took  place  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act, 
is  contingent  upon  the  fact  that  the  widow's  title  is  extinguished ; 
and  such  title  can  not  be  extinguished  save  by  death,  remarriage, 
or  a  forfeiture  under  the  act  of  August  7,  1882.  (Sec.  4708,  R.  S., 
and  act  of  August  7, 1882.) 

Opinion  in  the  case  of  the  minor  of  Still  (12  P.  D.,  25),  modi- 
fied and  explained. 

3.  Section  4702,  Revised  Statutes. 

Instructions — Minors'^  pension — Limitation.     (10  P.  D.,  465.) 

Section  4702  of  the  Revised  Statutes  does  not  require  that 

application  by  minor  children  for  pension  thereunder  be  made 

while  they  are  under  16  years  of  age. 

In  claims  where  the  children  had  attained  the  age  of  16  years 


390  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

before  July  1,  1880,  but  had  not  filed  application  for  the  pension 
prior  to  that  date,  it  is  recommended  that  a  judicial  decision  of 
the  question  should  be  obtained  in  a  test  case  for  the  future 
guidance  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  and  the  Commissioner 
of  Pensions,  and  Congress  has  been  requested  to  enact  a  law 
which  W'Ould  permit  this  to  be  done,  and  until  further  directions 
consideration  of  such  claims  wiJl  be  withheld. 

4.  Act  of  March  3,  1865. 

Minors — Widows — Remarriage — Act  of  March  3,  1865.  (Ehoda 
E.  Tuten,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  83.) 

Section  4  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1865,  placed  title  in  the  minors, 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  widow,  provided  the  widow  remarried 
without  payment  to  her  of  any  part  of  the  pension;  and  said 
section  was  not  repealed  or  modified,  so  far  as  such  issue  is  con- 
cerned, by  any  act  prior  to  March  30,  1868,  the  date  on  which  the 
claim  of  the  widow  herein  was  rejected. 

5.  Proof  of  Age. 

Minors — Evidence — Proof  of  age — Approximate  age.  (Caroline 
Mills,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  512.) 

Minors'  pension  having  been  withheld  on  account  of  claimant's 
inability  to  prove  the  exact  dates  of  birth,  a  special  examination 
is  ordered  to  obtain,  if  possible,  sufficient  data  from  which  to 
approximate  said  dates. 

A  minor's  pension  should  not  be  withheld  because  the  exact 
date  of  birth  can  not  be  shown ;  it  is  sufficient  for  all  purposes,  if 
the  date  can  be  approximated  with  sufficient  certainty  so  that  the 
Government  does  not  pay  beyond  the  period  of  pensionable 
minority. 

MINORS'  PENSION. 

See  Age  :  No.  3  (12  P.  D.,  511). 

See  Marriage:  No.  10  (10  P.  D.,  266). 

See  Minors:  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5  (9  P.  D.,  151;  10  P.  D.,  124;  11  P.  D., 

448 ;  12  P.  D.,  25,  511 ;  13  P.  D.,  148,  151 ;  15  P  D.,  28 ;  10  P.  D., 

465;  12  P.  D.,  83,  512). 

MINNESOTA  LAWS. 

See  Marriage  :  No.  2  (u)  (15  P.  D.,  236)  ;  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  220). 
See  Table  of  State  Statutes  for  15  P.  D. 

MISSISSIPPI  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (v)  (11  P.  D.,  266;  13  P.  D.,  57;  14  P.  D.,  476)  ; 
No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  393)  ;   No.  7  (9  P.  D.,  127)  ;   No.  15  (15  P.  D.,  11). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  10,  13,  14,  15  P.  D. 
See  10  P.  D.,  106 ;  13  P.  D.,  58 ;  14  P.  D.,  477. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  391 

MISSISSIPPI  MARINE  BRIGADE. 

See  Service:  No.  23  (13  P.  D.,    226). 

MISSOURI  LAWS. 

See  Divorce:  No.  2  (13  P.  D.,  G8)  ;  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  499). 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  No  13  (1.5  P.  D.  240). 

See  Legitimacy:  No.  (J  (13  P.  D.,  414). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (w)  (13  P.  D.,  59;  1.5  P.  D.,  86)  ;  No.  2  (kk) 
(10  P.  D.,  328)  ;  No.  3  (a)  (10  P.  D.,  294;  12  P.  D.,  106)  ;  No.  12 
(9  P.  D.,  243:  14  P.  D.,  442)  ;  No.  13  (14  P.  D.,  497)  ;  No.  15  (10 
P.  D.,  .362 ;  14  P.  D.,  491 ) . 

See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  9,  10,  11,  14,  and  15  P.  D. 

MISSOURI  MILITIA. 

See  Service:  No.  10  (10  P.  D.,  8,  19,  270;  12  P.  D.,  ,367). 

MISTAKE. 

See  Fraud  and  Mistake:  Nos.  1,  2,  3   (9  P.  D.,  149,  455;  12  P.  D., 

116;  14  P.  D.,  57  ;  11  P.  D.,  308,  200). 
See  Reimbursement:  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4   (10  P.  D.,  84;  13  P.  D.,  201; 

11  P.  D.,  395;   14  P.  D.,  152;    12  P.  D.,  394;    13  P.  D.,  13). 
See  Restoration:  No.  2  (14  P.  D.,  318). 
See  Res  Judicata:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  179). 

MISSING  IN  ACTION. 

See  Evidence:  No.  10  (15  P.  D.,  500). 

MORAL  CHARACTER. 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  No.  18  (13  P.  D.,  383 ;  14  P.  D.,  177,  338 ;  15 
,       P.  D.,  21,  123.  136). 

MONTANA  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (x). 

No  case  reported. 

MUSTER. 

See  Declarations:  No.  5  (10  P.  D.,  359). 

See  Service:  Nos.  10,  19,  20  (12  P.  D.,  521 ;  11  P.  D.,  282;  12  P.  D., 
500;  13  P.  D„  41 ;  14  P.  D.,  249). 

MUSTER  OUT  TO  ACCEPT  NEW  COMMISSION. 

See  Service:  No.  17  (10  P.  D.,  188). 

MURDER. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  10  (12  P.  D.,  180). 

MYOPIA. 

See  Disability:  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  185). 


392  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

NAVY  PENSION. 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  No.  19  (14  P.  D.,  1). 

Index. 

1.  The  ease  of  William  Finley. 

2.  Reimbiirsemeiit. 

.S.  Sections  4715.  47'>Ct,  and  47.">7,  Revised  Statutes. 

1.  The  Case  of  William  Finley. 

Navy  pensions — Sections  Ji.756^  Jf757^  mid  1^813^  Rerised  Statutes 
(William  Finley,  11  P.  D.,  410.) 

This  pensioner,  being  an  inmate  and  beneficiary  of  the  Naval 
Asylum,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  the  money  benefit  of  $13.25  per 
month,  to  which  he  was  entitled  under  section  475G,  Revised 
Statutes,  for -twenty  years'  service  in  the  Navy,  and  in  lieu  of 
which  he  accepted  the  home  in  the  asylum,  was  paid  to  the  gov- 
ernor of  that  institution,  by  virtue  of  section  4813,  Revised 
Statutes.  He  was  granted  leave  for  six  months  in  1896,  and 
during  such  leave  was  permitted  to  receive  the  $13.25  per  month 
in  person.  During  this  leave,  also,  he  applied  for  and  was  al- 
lowed a  pension  of  $8  per  month  for  service  in  the  Mexican  war. 
under  the  act  of  January  29,  1887,  but  the  first  payment  on  this 
certificate,  which  included  arrears  from  the  date  of  the  act,  was 
paid  to  the  governor  of  the  asylum,  by  the  pension  agent,  and 
pensioner  was  only  allowed  to  draw  the  amount  becoming  due 
during  the  period  of  his  leave  from  the  asylum. 

It  has  been  held  in  a  decision  by  the  Comptroller  of  the  Treas- 
ury (3  Dec,  Conip.  of  Treasury,  568)  that — 

"  Section  4813,  Revised  Statutes,  requiring  the  pension  of  any 
navy  officer,  seaman,  or  marine  entitled  to  a  pension  to  be  paid 
to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  during  his  continuance  in  a  navy 
hospital  only  applies  to  such  pension  the  benefit  of  which  the 
pensioner  was  actually  receiving  at  the  time  he  was  in  the  hos- 
pital, and  does  not  include  a  pension  acquired  after  he  left  the 
hospital." 

Following  this  ruling,  while  the  pensioner  was  still  construc- 
tively a  beneficiary  of  the  asylum,  although  on  leave,  yet  he  was 
not  actually  an  inmate,  and  the  recognition  by  the  asylum  au- 
thorities and  pension  agent  of  his  right  to  draw  his  pension  dur- 
ing the  period  of  such  absence  carried  with  it  the  right  to  draw 
all  of  such  pension,  including  the  arrears  under  the  Mexican  war 
act,  title  to  which  w^as  determined  while  he  was  not  an  inmate  of 
the  asylum.  The  payment  of  such  arrears  to  the  governor  or 
treasurer  of  the  asylum  was  erroneous,  and  to  this  extent  the 
appeal  is  sustained.  Other  points  in  the  appeal  are  overruled 
in  accordance  with  former  decisions  (John  Spencer,  7  P.  D.,  152; 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  398 


i 

H  Richard  Ewing,  8  P.  D.,  44),  except  in  so  far  as  the  scaling 

■  clause  of  section  4757,  Revised   Statutes,  is  made  to  apply  to 

■  section  4756,  Revised  Statutes. 

^   2.  Reimbursement. 

Navy  pensions — Section  Jf757^  Revised  Statutes — Reimbursement. 
(James  R.  Bell,  14  P.  D.,  224.) 

The  Commissioner  of  Pensions  has  no  lawful  power  to  direct 
recovery  from  a  subsequent  allowance  certified  to  him  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Navy  under  section  4757  of  the  Revised  Statutes, 
of  any  part  of  a  similar  allowance  previously  certified  to  him  by 
said  Secretary  of  the  Navy  and  already  paid  by  him,  notwith- 
standing the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  has,  since  the  final  payment 
of  said  first  allowance,  certified  that  he  has  reduced  it  and  re- 
quested payment  at  the  reduced  rate;  but  where  the  Secretary 
of  the  Navy  makes  such  certificate  and  request,  as  to  a  reduction 
of  the  rate,  before  action  by  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  upon 
the  first  certificate  authorizing  payment  at  the  rate  from  which 
reduced,  the  Commissioner  should  follow^  the  later  certificate 
and  request  and  should  pay  only  the  reduced  rate. 

3.  Sections  4715,  4756,  and  4757,  Revised  Statutes. 

Navy  pensions — Sections  Jf715^  Jf756^  and  Jf757^  Revised  Statutes. 
(Elizabeth  Sousa,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  166.) 

Antonio  Sousa,  the  deceased  musician,  was,  in  1879,  allowed  a 
money  benefit  of  $19.50  per  month  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy, 
under  section  4756,  Revised  Statutes.  Said  money  benefit  was 
paid  by  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  under  the  provisions  of 
said  section  until  May,  1885,  when  it  was  withheld,  for  the  rea- 
son that  said  musician  was  then  allowed  a  pension  under  the 
act  of  July  14,  1862,  said  withholding  continuing  up  to  the 
death  of  said  musician,  in  1892.  His  widow  applied  to  the  Com- 
missioner of  Pensions  for  payment  to  her  of  the  sum  so  withheld, 
and  said  application  was  rejected  in  1895,  upon  the  ground  that 
she  was  not  entitled  in  law  to  file  the  same,  said  musician  having 
never  filed  any  such  claim  in  his  lifetime.  On  appeal  to  this 
Department  said  action  of  rejection  was  affirmed  on  August  22, 
1901,  upon  the  ground  that  "  the  widow  has  no  title  to  a  pension 
under  section  4756,  Revised  Statutes,  her  husband  having  sur- 
rendered his  title  to  pension  under  that  section  for  a  pension 
under  the  general  law."  Upon  motion  for  a  reconsideration  of 
said  departmental  decision  it  is 

Held:  1.  Although  the  money  benefits  granted  by  sections 
4756  and  4757,  Revised  Statutes  (section  6  of  the  act  of  March 
2,  1867),  are,  in  a  general  sense,  pensions,  they  are  not  pensions 


394  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

in  the  usual  and  ordinary  acceptation  of  that  term,  and  were 
intended  to  be  a  "  further  provision  for  the  support  "  of  the 
beneficiaries  thereunder  in  addition  to  pensions  granted  them 
by  other  laws.  Section  -1:715,  Revised  Statutes,  and  the  proviso 
to  the  second  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  prohibiting  the 
allowance  of  more  than  one  pension  at  the  same  time  to  the 
same  person,  constitute,  therefore,  no  bar  to  the  allowance  of 
such  money  benefits  to  persons  who  are  in  receipt  of  pensions 
under  other  laws.  (John  Spencer,  0  P.  D.,  107,  and  7  P.  D.,  152; 
Richard  Ewing,  8  P.  D.,  44;  William  Finley,  11  P.  D.,  410.) 

2.  The  money  benefits  granted  by  sections  4750  and  4757,  Re- 
vised Statutes  (section  G,  act  of  March  2,  1867),  are  allowed  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  who  is,  by  the  express  terms  of  the 
law,  the  sole  judge  of  who  is  entitled  to  receive  them,  and  the 
Commissioner  of  Pensions  acts  in  relation  thereto  in  a  purely 
ministerial  capacity,  and  only  as  the  authorized  medium  for 
the  transmission  or  payment' of  such  money  benefits  to  the  person 
certified  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  as  entitled  to  receive- them, 
his  sole  warrant  for  making  such  payments  being  the  certificate 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy.  The  Commissioner  of  Pensions 
has  therefore  no  authority  in  law  to  allow  or  to  decide  who  are 
entitled  to  receive  such  money  benefits,  or  to  withhold  the  pay- 
ment of  the  same  from  the  persons  who  have  been  duly  certified 
by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  as  entitled  thereto. 

3.  The  withholding  by  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  of  the 
payments  of  the  money  benefit  allowed  to  the  deceased  musician, 
Antonio  Sousa,  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  under  section  4756, 
Revised  Statutes,  from  the  date  of  the  commencement  of  the 
pension  allowed  him  under  the  general  pension  law,  was  wrong- 
ful and  without  authority  of  law. 

4.  The  question  whether  the  widow  of  said  deceased  musician 
is  entitled  to  apply  for  and  receive  said  withheld  payments  as 
in  the  nature  of  accrued  pension,  or  as  assets  of  the  estate  of  her 
deceased  husband,  is  one  which  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions 
has  no  jurisdiction  or  authority  under  the  law  to  determine,  but 
the  decision  of  such  question  rests  exclusively  with  the  Secretary 
of  the  Navy,  to  whom  application  should  be  made. 

5.  The  decision  of  this  Department  in  this  case  of  August  22, 
1901,  is  hereby  vacated  and  set  aside. 

6.  The  rejection  by  the  Pension  Bureau  on  April  22,  1895,  of 
the  application  of  the  widow  for  the  amount  of  the  withheld 
money  benefit  allowed  her  deceased  husband  under  section  4756, 
Revised  Statutes,  upon  the  ground  that  no  claim  therefor  by  the 
husband  was  pending  at  the  date  of  his  death  was  error,  for  the 
reason  that  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  had  no  jurisdiction 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  395 

or  authority  to  decide  the  question  involved  or  to  pass  upon 
said  application,  and  for  the  further  reason  that  said  ground 
of  rejection  was  not  applicable  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  but  the 
action  rejecting  said  application  is  hereby  affirmed  upon  the 
ground,  however,  that  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  had  no 
jurisdiction  or  authority  in  law  to  hear  or  determine  the  same, 
and  that  said  application  should  have  been  made  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Navy. 

7.  Order  No.  380  of  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions,  which  was 
based  upon  the  holding  in  the  decision  rendered  in  this  case  by 
the  Department  on  August  22,  1901,  and  which  is  dated  Septem- 
ber 9,  1901,  is  hereby  abrogated  and  annulled,  and  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Pensions  will  be  governed  in  the  payment  of  money 
benefits  allowed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  under  sections 
4756  and  4757,  Revised  Statutes,  by  the  provisions  of  paragraphs 
7  and  8,  on  page  85,  "  Practice  of  the  Pension  Bureau,"  and  the 
practice  thereunder  which  prevailed  prior  to  the  issuance  of 
said  order  No.  380. 

NAVAL  HOME. 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  No.  19  (14  P.  D.,  p.  1). 

NECESSITOUS  CIRCUMSTANCES. 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  No.  9  (12  P.  D.,  336)  ;  No.  13  (13  P.  D.,  77, 
205,  233,  302 ;  14  P.  D.,  136,  385 ;  15  P.  D.,  246,  450,  496). 

NEBRASKA  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (y)   (15  P.  D.,  211). 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (z)   (13  P.  D.,  213;  15  P.  D.,  258). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  12,  13,  15  P.  D. 
See  12  P.  D.,  440 ;  13  P.  D.,  215. 

NEVADA  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (yz). 
No  case  reported. 

NEW  MEXICO  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  11  (15  P.  D.,  392). 

NEW  JERSEY  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (aa)    (13  P.  D.,  403). 
See  Table  of  State  Statutes  for  15  P.  D. 


396  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

NEW  YORK  LAWS. 

See  Decree  of  Nullity:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  238)  ;  No.  G  (15  P.  D.,  227). 

See  Divorce:  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  303;  14  P.  D.,  173). 

See  Legitimacy:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  199). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2   (bb)    (10  P.  D.,  389;  11  P.  D.,  212;  12  P.  D., 

300,  .340;  13  P.  D.,  1.57;  14  P.  D.,  .305;  15  P.  D..  208,  413). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  9,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14,  and  15  P.  D. 
See  10  P.  D.,  241,  242,  243;  12  P.  D.,  311,  514;  14  P.  D.,  20,  177. 


NEGLECT. 


See  Attorneys:  No.  11  (9  P.  D.,  137)  ;  No.  13  (14  P.  D.,  172,  228)  ; 

No.  14  (11  P.  D.,  492)  ;  No.  20  (15  P.  D.,  359). 
See  Practice  :  No.  1  (15  P.  D.,  96). 

NEGLIGENCE. 

See  Death  Cause  :  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  303)  ;  No.  3  (9  P.  D.,  439). 
See  Line  of  Duty  :  No.  8  (14  P.  D.,  203). 

NEUBALGIA. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  25  (15  P.  D.,  139). 

NEW  EXAMINATIONS. 

See  Medical  Examinations:  No.  2  (14  P.  D.,  450). 

NEW  DISABILITY. 

See  Commencement:  No.  4  (9  P.  D.,  313). 

See  Evidence  :  No.  6  (9  P.  D.,  214 ;  10  P.  D.,  46). 

NO  FUND,  NO  FEE. 

See  Fee  :  No.  4  (9  P.  D.,  402 ;  11  P.  D.,  149). 

NONRESIDENTS— CLAIMS  BY. 

Nonresidents — Adjudication,  (Henry  McFadger,  9  P.  D.,  437.) 
The  law-making  power  has  made  no  distinction  between  appli- 
cants for  pension  by  reason  of  their  place  of  residence  since  the 
war,  and  there  should  be  none  in  the  execution  of  the  law;  and 
all  orders  or  instructions  which,  in  effect,  suspend  or  prevent  a 
prompt  and  impartial  adjudication  of  claims  filed  by  nonresi- 
dents are  revoked,  and  there  shall  be  no  distinction  between 
claims  filed  by  those  who  reside  in  this  country  and  those  who 
reside  in  foreign  countries. 

NO  BENEFIT. 

See  Pbactice  :  No.  15  (11  P.  D.,  455). 


I 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  897 


NOTICE. 


I 


References. 

See  Divorce  :  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  434). 

See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  2   (11  P.  D.,  288)  ;  No.  6   (12  P.  D., 

370)  ;  No.  10  (15  P.  D.,  132). 
See  Election  :  No.  1  ( 10  P.  D.,  Gl ) . 
See  Evidence:  No.  11  (11  P.  D.,  523,  524). 
See  Fee:  No.  11  (12  P.  D.,  239)  ;  No.  21  (13  P.  D.,  37,  39). 
See  Helpless  Minor:  No.  3  (15  P.  D.^478). 

See  Practice:  Nos.  17,  20  (12  P.  D.,  44,  157,  225;  13  P.  D.,  206). 
See  Rate  and  Rating  :  No.  12  (9  P.  D.,  165). 
See  Reduction  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  48,  121). 
See  Restoration  :  No.  5  (15  P.  D.,  475). 

Index. 

1.  Dropping  from  the  rolls. 

2.  Of  reduction  illegal. 

1.  Dropping  from  the  Rolls. 

Notice — Droppi7ig  from  the  rolls.  (Spencer  Payne,  9  P.  D.,  50.) 
As  the  evidence  tends  to  show  that  claimant  failed  to  receive 
notice  of  the  proposed  dropping  from  the  rolls  and  to  appear  for 
a  medical  examination,  the  action  dropping  his  name  from  the 
rolls  is  reversed  and  the  case  remanded  for  further  adjudication, 
that  claimant  may  have  an  opportunity  to  file  rebutting  evidence 
and  to  be  examined. 

2.  Of  Reduction  Illegal. 

Notice — Reduction — Increase — Acts  July  IJf^  1892,  and  December 
21, 1893.     (Silas  Renick,  12  P.  D.,  21.) 

Appellant  was  a  pensioner  on  the  roll  at  the  rate  of  $50  per 
month  (first  grade) .  His  pension  was  increased  to  $72  per  month 
under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  June  16,  1880. 

On  April  4,  1896,  his  rate  of  pension  was  reduced  to  $30  per 
month,  and  on  December  1,  1898,  he  was  restored  to  the  rate  of 
$50  per  month  from  April  4,  1896,  date  of  reduction. 

It  is  held  that  such  reduction  of  the  rate  of  pension  was  illegal 
for  the  reason  that  the  notice  sent  to  pensioner  was  not  such  notice 
as  is  prescribed  by  the  act  of  December  21,  1893,  as  it  did  not 
"  contain  a  full  and  true  statement  of  any  charges  or  allega- 
tions "  upon  which  it  was  proposed  to  reduce  his  rate  of  pension, 
and  that  the  action  restoring  him  to  the  rate  of  $50  per  month 
from  date  of  reduction  (April  4,  1896)  was  illegal,  as  no  medical 
examination  was  had  showing  a  decrease  of  appellant's  disability 
until  July  S,  1898,  to  which  date  he  was  legally  entitled  to  remain 
on  the  rolls  at  the  rate  of  $72  per  month. 

NULLITY. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (a)   (10  P.  D.,  118). 


398  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

NUNC  PRO  TUNC  DECREE. 

See  Divorce:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  1). 

NORTH  CAROLINA  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:    No.  2  (cc)   (12  P.  D.,  287). 
See  Table  of  State  Statutes  for  12  P.  D. 

NORTH  DAKOTA  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (dd). 
No  case  reported. 

OATHS  OF  ENLISTMENT. 

See  Age:  No.  2  (11  P.  D.,  286). 

OBSTRUCTION  OF  BOWELS. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  10  (13  P.  D.,  105). 

(EDEMA. 

See  Disability:  No.  6  (11  P.  D.,  505). 

OHIO  LAWS. 

See  Legitimacy  :  No.  8  (13  P.  D.,  541 ;  14  P.  D.,  428). 

See  Decree  of  Nullity:  No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  271)  ;  No.  7  (15  P.  D.,  28(>). 

See  Divorce:  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  236). 

See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  12  (13  P.  D.,  120)  ;  No.  20  (15  P.  D., 

143). 
See  Marriage:  No.  2  (ee)    (10  P.  D.,  211;  15  P.  D.,  225)  ;  No.  9  (15 

P.  D.,  308). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  12,  13,  15  P.  D. 

OFFICER. 

See  Desertion  :  No.  4  (e)  (15  P.  D.,  94)  ;  No.  7  (15  P.  D.,  276). 
See  Jurisdiction  :  No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  416). 
See  Line  of  Duty:  No.  12  (11  P.  D.,  28). 

ONE  CLAIM,  ONE  FEE. 

See  Fee:  No.  5  (9  P.  D.,  117). 

ON  A  PASS  TO  VISIT  FRIENDS. 

See  Line  of  Duty:  No.  13  (12  P.  D.,  142). 

ON  A  PASS  TO  HUNT. 

See  Line  of  Duty  :  Nos.  1,  10  (9  P.  D.,  227  ;  11  P.  D.,  55). 

ORDER  74. 

See  Medical  Examinations:  No.  2  (14  P.  D.,  450). 

ORDER  192. 

See  Practice:  No.  6  (11  P.  D.,  95), 


I 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  399 


ORDER  352. 

See  Practice:  No.  4  (9  P.  D.,  285,  290). 

ORDER  354. 

See  Fee:  No.  21  (13  P.  D.,  37,  39).  i    MNiYEHSITY 


TTraT 

or  THE 


£li^QRWj 


See  Limitation:  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  421). 

ORIGIN. 

References. 

See  Anterebellion  Service:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  220). 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  15  (15  P.  D.,  58). 

See  Disability:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  133). 

See  Line  of  Duty:  Nos  12,  15  (11  P.  D.,  28;  13  P.  D.,  358;  14  P.  D., 
518). 
Index. 

1.  Incubation — Typhoid  fever. 

2.  Prior  soundness. 

3.  Dropping — Error  as  to  origin. 

1.  Incubation — Typhoid  Fever. 

Origin — Disability  —  Incuhatioii  —  Typhoid  fever.  (Andrew 
Forbes,  11  P.  D.,  329.) 

This  claim  was  rejected  for  the  reason  that,  acording  to  the 
records  of  the  War  Department,  the  appellant  became  ill  in  eight 
days  after  his  enlistment,  and  that,  according  to  the  evidence 
filed,  his  sickness  was  typhoid  fever;  and  that,  acording  to 
medical  authorities,  the  period  of  eight  days  is  too  short  for  the 
incubation  of  said  disease,  which  was,  therefore,  not  contracted 
in  the  service,  and  consequently  any  disability  arising  therefrom 
is  not  pensionable. 

Held:  That  the  facts  in  the  case  show  that  said  record  is  erro- 
neous as  to  the  date  of  commencement  of  the  soldier's  illness, 
and  that  the  statement  of  the  Bureau  relative  to  the  period  of 
incubation  of  typhoid  fever  is  incorrect. 

Action  reversed. 

2.  Prior  Soundness. 

Origin  of  disahility — Prior  soundness — Line  of  duty.  (Charles  W. 
Hickerson,  12  P.  D.,  298.) 

Appellant  was  discharged  on  account  of  disability  due  to  dis- 
ease of  eyes  upon  the  recommendation  of  a  board  of  survey, 
who  reported  that  while  working  as  a  fireman  in  an  electric 
power  house  in  Washington  over  two  years  prior  to  his  enlist- 
ment he  was  (as  he  says)  fire  blinded,  so  that  he  could  not  work 
for  two  months,  which  condition  of  his  eyes  became  aggravated 
after  his  enlistment  and  detail  to  the  boiler  room  of  the  U.  S.  S. 
St.  Paul. 

Held:  That  disease  of  eyes  did  not  originate  in  the  service 
and  line  of  duty. 


400  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

3.  Dropping — Error  as  to  Origin. 

Origin — Disease  of  eyes — Dropping.    (James  C.  Hall,  13  P.  D.,  1.) 

Under  a  misapprehension  of  facts,  or  on  account  of  an  error  of 
judgment  based  on  insufficient  testimony,  the  appellant  was  origi- 
nally granted  a  pension  under  the  general  law  at  the  rate  of  $6 
per  month  for  "disease  of  left  eye;"  but  in  pursuance  of  sub- 
sequent and  more  reliable  evidence  going  to  show  that  such  cause 
of  disability  was  not  of  service  origin  his  name  was  dropped  from 
the  pension  rolls. 

It  is  shown  that  the  only  disease  of  left  eye  is  the  same  as  that 
which  also  affects  the  right  eye,  namely,  conical  cornea,  or 
conicity  of  the  cornea  (keratoconus  or  keratoglobus ;  staphyloma 
pellucidum),  "  the  cause  of  which  is  not  known  "  (Norris)  ;  but 
for  the  relief  of  which  iridectomy  is  usually  resorted  to,  and  such 
operation  was  performed  on  each  eye  in  this  case,  with  poor 
results  in  one  eye  and  but  partial  success  in  the  other. 

Held:  That  the  condition  of  the  appellant's  eyes  is  not  shown 
to  have  originated  in  the  service,  and  that,  in  view  of  the  nature 
of  the  disease  in  question,  it  is  not  believed  to  be  susceptible  of 
proof  as  of  service  origin. 

OREGON  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (ff)   (11  P.  D.,  427). 

See  Service:  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  390). 

See  Table  of  State  Statutes  for  11  P.  D. 

ORPHAN  BROTHERS  AND  SISTERS. 

See  Dependent  Brothers  and  Sisters. 

OPINION  EVIDENCE. 

See  Evidence:  No.  7  (13  P.  D.,  450). 

OPINION  OF  OTHER  DEPARTMENTS. 

See  Vicious  Habits  :  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  427). 

PARDON. 

See  Desertion:  No.  4  (f)   (14  P.  D.,  352). 

PASS  TO  HUNT. 

See  Line  of  Duty:  Nos.  1,  10  (9  P.  D.,  227;   11  P.  D.,  55). 

PASS,  ON  A,  TO  VISIT  FRIENDS. 

See  Line  of  Duty:  No.  13  (12  P.  D.,  142). 

PATHOLOGY. 

See  Rerating:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  188). 


--J 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  401 


PATHOLOGICAL  SEaUENCE. 
Beferences. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  5  (10  P.  D.,  202;  11  P.  D.,  62,  106,  220,  388, 
440,  459)  ;    No.  8  (12  P.  D.,  354)  ;    No.  11   (12  P.  D.,  342)  ;    No.  12 
(13  P.  D.,  372)  ;    No.  14  (13  P.  D..  342). 
See  Disability:  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  185). 
See  Increase:  No.  4  (12  P.  D.,  59). 
Index. 

1.  Practice. 

2.  Arteriosclerosis  arid  chronic  diarrhea. 

3.  Asthma  and  cerebral  hemorrhage. 

4.  Cancer  and  malarial  poisoning. 

5.  Disease  of  the  heart  and  erysipelas. 

6.  Malarial  poisoning  and  disease  of  the  heart. 

7.  Typhoid  fever. 

8.  Disease  of  rectum  and  nnemic  ])oisoning. 

9.  Inflammation  of  bladder  and  hernia. 

10.  Obstruction  of  bowels  and  insanity. 

11.  Paralysis  and  gunshot  wound. 

12.  Paralysis  and  lightning  stroke. 

13.  Paralysis  and  rheumatism. 

14.  Blindness  and  chronic  diarrhea. 

15.  Ulcerations  and  syncope. 

10.  Gunshot  wound,  malarial  poisoning,  and  disease  of  spine. 

17.  Catarrh  and  bronchitis. 

18.  Insanity  and  sunstroke. 

19.  Paralysis  agitans  and  chronic  diarrhea. 

20.  Cause  of  disability. 

21.  Tuberculosis  and  catarrh. 

22.  Disease  of  kidneys — special  act. 

23.  Chronic  ascending  neuritis. 

24.  Amputation — Paralysis  agitans. 

25.  Paralysis — Neuralgia. 

20.  Paraplegia — Gunshot  wound  of  leg. 
27.  Disease  of  kidneys — Injury  to  ankle. 

1.  Practice. 
Pathological  sequence— Practice i     (Thaddeus  P.   Reig,  9   P.   D., 
444.) 

The  soldier  is  now  pensioned  at  $16  per  month  for  "  rheuma- 
tism and  resulting  disease  of  heart  and  total  deafness  of  left  ear." 

He  claimed  increase  on  the  ground  that  the  rheumatism  had 
affected  his  spinal  column. 

On  examination  he  was  shown  to  be  suffering  from  locomotor 
ataxia.  The  claim  for  increase  was  rejected  on  the  ground  that 
disease  of  the  spinal  cord  could  not  result  from  rheumatism. 

From  this  action  the  claimant  appeals,  contending — 

First.  That  he  has  established  by  competent  evidence  that  the 
locomotor  ataxia  did  result  from  the  rheumatism  for  which  he  is 
pensioned. 
13070— 06— -26 


402  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Second.  That  the  symptoms  upon  which  the  chiim  for  rhenma- 
tism  was  both  based  and  established  were  but  the  earlier  mani- 
festations of  the  cord  lesion,  and  that  the  name  of  the  pensioned 
disability  should  be  changed  by  substituting  locomotor  ataxia  for 
rheumatism. 

Third.  That  he  is  suffering  from  both  rheumatism  and  loco- 
motor ataxia;  that  both  disabilities  are  of  service  origin,  and 
that  the  evidence  upon  which  his  claim  on  account  of  the  former 
disability  was  established  should  be  accepted  as  also  showing  the 
service  origin  of  the  latter. 

Held:  First.  That  although  it  is  almost  universally  conceded 
by  the  medical  profession  that  rheumatism  and  locomotor  ataxia 
have  one  or  more  etiological  factors  in  common,  and  also,  in  the 
preatavic  stage  of  the  latter  disease,  certain  similar  subjective 
symptoms,  they  are,  nevertheless,  universally  considered  b}^  all 
recognized  medical  authorities  as  entirely  separate  and  distinct 
diseases,  ^\'\i\\  no  similarity  whatever  in  their  pathological 
anatomy,  and  are  not  regarded  by  the  most  modern  observers  as 
having  any  causal  relation  to  each  other,  either  pathological  or 
otherwise. 

Second.  That  inasmuch  as  both  rheumatism  and  tabes  dorsalis 
are  shown  to  exist,  the  contention  that  the  latter  Avas  mistaken 
for  the  former  is  untenable. 

Third.  That  in  view^  of  the  fact  that  the  Department  does  not 
take  primary  action  in  any  claim  for  pension,  the  contention  that 
the  evidence  on  file  also  establishes  the  service  origin  of  locomotor 
ataxia  can  not  be  considered  until  the  merits  of  the  claim  shall 
first  have  been  passed  upon  by  the  Bureau  of  Pensions. 
Pathological  sequence — Evidence — Medical  referee.  (Sarah  J. 
May,  widow,  10  P.  D.,  52.) 

Generally,  where  an  attending  physician  appears  to  be  in  good 
standing  his  diagnosis  of  the  patient's  disease  is  accepted  as  cor- 
rect; but  when  it  comes  to  a  question  as  to  whether  one  disease 
resulted  from  another  or  not  the  ipse  dixit  of  such  attending 
physician  is  not  received  unless  in  accord  with  the  generally 
accepted  teachings  of  medical  science  (as  to  which  the  Depart- 
ment will  be  advised  by  the  medical  referee)  or  unless  it  derives 
some  peculiar  and  extraordinary  value  from  such  physician's 
professional  standing  and  experience. 
Pathological  sequence — Death  cause — Practice — Witnesses — E vi- 
dence.     (Ann  E.  Johnson,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  425.) 

1.  The  soldier  was  pensioned  for  lumbago,  and  no  other  affec- 
tion was  alleged  or  shown  to  be  due  to  his  military  service.  His 
death  in  1899  was  ascribed  by  the  attending  physician  to  suppres- 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  403 

sion  of  urine.  The  evidence  shows  that  the  primary  cause  of  the 
urinary  trouble  was  enlargement  of  the  prostate  gland.  The 
pensioned  disability  was  not  a  material  factor  in  the  fatal  issue, 
either  directly  or  indirectly.  Lumbago,  or  rheumatism,  is  not 
recognized  as  a  cause  of  enlargement  of  the  prostate  gland. 

2.  The  official  statements  of  examining  surgeons  are  only  such 
statements  as  are  made  in  their  official  reports  or  directly  in  con- 
nection therewith.  A^Hien  an  examining  surgeon  happens  also  to 
be  (or  to  have  been)  the  attending  physician  of  a  soldier,  and  in 
his  capacity  as  such  physician  furnishes  testimony  in  support  of 
any  claim  for  pension  based  upon  the  service  of  such  soldier,  his 
testimony  is  not  official. 

3.  Additional  evidence  in  pension  claims  is  that  which  is  both 
executed  and  filed  in  addition  to  evidence  which  w^as  previously 
executed  and  filed ;  it  is  also  such  evidence  as  may  have  been  exe- 
cuted prior  to  the  adjudication  of  a  claim  if  the  subsequent  filing 
thereof  is  satisfactorily  accounted  for.  When  testimony  has 
been  intentionally  withheld  after  its  execution  and  not  filed  until 
the  claim  has  been  adjudicated,  it  can  not  be  regarded  as  addi- 
tional. 

Pathological  sequence — Injury  to  hack — C erehro-spinal  sclerosis — 
Practice.     (Oscar  Getman,  15  P.  D.  150.) 

The  appellant,  who  is  pensioned  for  "  varicocele  of  left  side 
and  injury  to  back  and  right  hip,"  is  also  suffering  from  some 
obscure  disease  of  the  central  nervous  system,  which,  according 
to  the  facts  presented  in  the  case,  has  existed  since  1884  at  least, 
and  w^hich  now  totally  disables  him. 

It  is  now  contended  that  inasmuch  as  "  the  spine  is  in  the 
back,  and  the  principal  part  of  the  back,"  it  must  necessarily 
have  been  involved  in  the  aforesaid  "  injury  to  back."  Such 
contention,  however,  is  error,  as  the  spinal  column  does  not 
occupy  so  much  space  in  the  posterior  aspect  of  the  trunk  but 
that  many  injuries  of  much  severity  both  can  and  do  occur  in 
said  region  without  involving  either  the  vertebrae  or  the  cord 
inclosed  therein. 

In  the  case  at  bar  it  is  not  shown  that  either  the  spinal  column 
or  cord  was  ever  injured  in  any  manner  whatever;  but  it  is 
sufficiently  well  shown  that  the  existing  nerve  lesion  is  a  multiple 
cerebro-spinal  sclerosis,  and  that  it  is  not  due  either  directly  or 
indirectly  to  appellant's  military  service. 

The  approval  for  "  injury  to  back  "  and  the  contention  based 
thereon  emphasize  the  advisability  of  indicating  more  definitely 
in  such  general  approvals  the  nature  of  the  conditions  accepted 
as  of  service  origin. 


404  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

2.  Arterio-sclerosis  and  Chronic  Diarrhea. 

Pathological  sequence — Arterio-sclerosis  and  chronic  diarrhea. 
(Harvey  Clark,  12  P.  D.,  453.) 

The  claimant  is  now  pensioned  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 
He  was  formerly  pensioned  under  the  general  law  for  piles.  His 
claim  for  renewal  and  for  additional  disability  from  chronic 
diarrhea  was  favorably  adjudicated,  but  it  stands  rejected  on  the 
ground  of  "  no  benefit."  He  alleged  that  disease  of  eyes  and 
disease  of  heart  were  results  of  chronic  diarrhea.  It  is  shown 
that  he  suffers  from  general  arterio-sclerosis,  and  that  the  affec- 
tion of  the  eyes,  first  noticed  in  1897,  is  due  to  retinal  hemor- 
rhages from  this  cause.  Arterio-sclerosis  is  "  a  physiologic 
process  of  old  age  "  mainly,  and  there  is  no  recognized  j)atho- 
logical  relation  between  this  affection  and  chronic  diarrhea  as 
alleged. 

3.  Asthma  and  Cerebral  Hemorrhage. 

Pathological  sequence — Asihvut  and  cerehral  hemorrhage.  (Phi- 
lena  E.  Tibbetts,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  443.) 

The  appellant's  husband  was  a  pensioner  on  account  of  asthma, 
among  other  causes,  and  died  of  cerebral  hemorrhage  during  an 
unusually  severe  paroxysm  of  said  disease. 

Held:  That  the  increased  intravascular  pressure  caused  by  the 
asthma  produced  the  fatal  hemorrhage. 

4.  Cancer  and  Malarial  Poisoning. 

Pathological  sequence^C ancer  and  malarial  poisoning.  (John  C. 
Holtorf,  12  P.  D.,  422.) 

The  claimant  is  pensioned,  on  account  of  malarial  poisoning 
and  resulting  disease  of  liver,  at  the  rate  of  $12  per  month.  The 
official  examination  under  the  claim  revealed  no  material  increase 
of  disability  from  said  cause.  An  induration  or  tumor  at  the 
pyloric  end  of  the  stomach  Avas  described  in  the  report  of  said 
examination,  and  it  appears  from  the  statements  of  the  claimant 
and  the  attorney  that  this  condition  has  been  diagnosticated  as 
cancer.  There  is  no  apparent  or  probable  pathological  relation 
between  this  disease  and  the  pensioned  disability. 

5.  Disease  of  the  Heart  and  Erysipelas. 

Pathological  sequence — Disease  of  heart  and  erysipelas.  (Annie 
M.  Keiler,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  491.) 

The  attending  physician  during  his  last  illness  testified  that 
the  immediate  cause  of  the  soldier's  death  was  "paralysis  of 
heart,  induced  by  erysipelas  (facial)." 


l>EN&lON    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  405 

The  decedent  never  filed  a  claim  for  pension  under  the  general 
law,  but  did  file  a  claim  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  and  was 
pensioned  at  the  maximum  rate  thereunder  for  rheumatism,  dis- 
ease of  heart,  and  other  causes  of  disability,  which  he  himself 
stated  were  "  contracted  since  the  war." 

His  widow,  who  was  also  granted  a  pension  under  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  based  her  claim  for  pension  under  the  general  law 
on  the  alleged  ground  that  inasmuch  as  the  soldier  had  an  attack 
of  erysipelas  during  his  military  service  and  had  a  number  of 
similar  attacks  subsequent  to  his  discharge — during  one  of  which 
he  died — his  death  was  due  to  his  service. 

Held:  1.  That  the  evidence  in  the  case  is  insufficient  to  show 
that  while  in  the  service,  or  at  any  time  subsequent  thereto,  the 
soldier  had  facial  erysipelas;  but  does  show  that  the  year  pre- 
ceding his  death  he  suffered  from  valvular  disease  of  heart,  re- 
sulting from  rheumatism,  which  was  probably  the  cause  of  his 
demise. 

2.  That  erysipelas  is  recognized  as  an  acute,  self -limited,  in- 
fectious disease — due  to  a  micro-organism — which  generally  ter- 
minates within  two  weeks;  and,  though  prone  to  recur,  each 
recurrent  attack  is  due  to  a  fresh  invasion  of  the  erysipelas-pro- 
ducing organisms,  and  is  not  induced  by,  or  a  result  of,  a  prior 
attack.  An  attack  of  such  disease  in  1894,  even  though  it  ex- 
isted and  caused  the  soldier's  death,  could  not  therefore  have 
been  a  result  of  his  military  service. 

6.  Malarial  Poisoning  and  Disease  of  the  Heart. 

Pathological  sequence — Malarial  poisoning  and  disease  of  heart. 
(Phoebe  A.  Clough,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  486.) 

The  soldier  was  pensioned  for  a  gunshot  wound  of  the  right 
hand  and  malarial  poisoning.  No  other  affection  was  alleged 
or  shown  to  have  been  due  to  his  military  service.  He  died  sud- 
denly, in  1898,  from  dilatation  of  the  heart,  which  was  secondar}^ 
to  valvular  disease  of  that  organ.  There  was  no  pathological 
relation  between  the  malaria  poisoning  and  the  disease  of  heart 
which  proved  fatal,  nor  does  it  appear  that  the  former  affection 
was  a  material  factor  in  causing  the  soldier's  death. 

7.  Typhoid  Fever. 

Pathological   sequence — Typhoid   fever — Bacteriology.      (Charles 
W.  Snowman,  12  P.  D.,  118.) 

Since  the  discovery  and  isolation — by  Eberth,  in  1880 — of  the 
bacillus  of  typhoid  fever,  the  views  of  the  medical  profession, 
according  to  Keen  and  other  recent  writers,  as  to  the  pathology 
not  only  of  the  fever  itself,  but  also  of  its  complications  and 


4()G  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

sequels,  recent  and  remote,  have  undergone  an  entire  revolution, 
and  much  is  now  understood  that  was  formerly  inexplicable. 
The  diffusion  of  this  micro-organism  is  so  wide  that  "  scarcely  a 
single  tissue  or  organ  of  the  body  escapes  invasion  by  the  typhoid 
bacilli  "  (Keen).  The  complications  and  sequels  of  typhoid  fever 
are  so  numerous  and  so  varied  that  both  medical  and  surgical 
divisions  thereof  are  now  recognized. 

"  Excepting  the  laryngeal  complications  and  sequels  of  ty- 
phoid 'fever,  the  most  frequent  are  those  connected  w^ith  the 
bones  "  (Keen)  ;  and  modern  bacteriology  now  furnishes  a  sci- 
entific method  of  demonstrating  the  existence  or  nonexistence  of 
a  pathologic  connection  between  enteric  fever  and  a  suspected 
sequel  thereof. 

Held:  That  inasmuch  as  the  appellant  in  the  case  at  bar  con- 
tracted typhoid  fever  in  the  military  service  and  line  of  duty, 
and  subsequent  to  his  muster  out  from  such  service,  certain  sup- 
purative conditions  arose,  involving  the  bones  and  other  tissues, 
especially  of  the  right  leg,  necessitating  the  amputation  of  the 
right  foot,  which  conditions,  it  is  contended,  are  sequelae  of  the 
said  fever,  further  efforts — through  thorough  special  and  med- 
ical examinations,  respectively — should  be  made  to  ascertain 
whether  or  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  present  condition  of  the 
soldier  was  caused  by  the  enteric  fever  of  service  origin. 

8.  Disease  of  Rectum  and  TJraemic  Poisoning. 

Pathological  sequence — Disease  of  rectmn  and  urmmic  poisoning. 
(Euth  E.  Robinson,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  153.) 

The  soldier  was  pensioned  for  disease  of  rectum,  incurred  in 
1862,  and  no  other  affection  of  service  origin  was  established. 
He  died  in  1899  of  ura^mic  poisoning,  the  consequence  of  cystitis 
and  a  train  of  symptoms  which  were  primarily  due  to  senile 
enlargement  of  the  prostate  gland.  There  was  no  necessary  or 
probable  pathological  relation  betw^een  disease  of  rectum,  on 
account  of  which  he  was  pensioned,  and  the  conditions  which 
resulted  in  the  soldier's  death. 

9.  Inflammation  of  Bladder  and  Hernia. 

Pathological    sequence — Inflammation    of    bladder    and    hernia. 
(Rhoda  Harriman,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  184.) 

Inflammation  of  bladder  and  retention  of  urine  due  to  an  en- 
larged prostate  gland,  from  which  the  soldier  died,  can  not  be 
regarded  as  in  any  manner  related  to  a  hernia  on  account  of 
which  he  had  been  granted  pension,  and  said  fatal  disease  is 
not  shown  as  otherwise  due  to  his  military  service. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  407 

10.  Obstruction  of  Bowels  and  Insanity. 

I  Pathological  sequence — Insanity — Obstruction  to  howels — Death 
cause.  (Katie  Cole,  widow,  i;3  P.  D.,  105.) 
The  soldier  was  a  pensioner  on  account  of  insanity  (paretic 
dementia ) ,  and  died  of  acute  obstruction  of  the  bowels. 
As  the  intestines  were  paretic  as  well  as  other  parts  of  the 
body,  it  is  not  illogical  to  regard  the  intestinal  obstruction  as 
due  to  the  disability  for  which  soldier  was  pensioned. 

11.  Paralysis  and  Gunshot  Wound. 

Patholof/ical  sequence — Gunshot  wound  a7id  paralysis  agitans — 
Increase.     (Franklin  Savage,  13  P.  D.,  107.) 

The  present  rate  in  the  case,  third  grade,  appears  to  be  fully 
adequate  to  the  degree  of  disability,  due  to  pensioned  causes, 
"  gunshot  wounds  of  right  hip  and  back  and  left  leg."  The 
paralysis  agitans  from  which  he  is  also  suffering,  and  which 
was  first  manifested  upon  medical  examination  in  1896,  thirty- 
four  years  subsequent  to  the  receipt  of  the  wounds  for  which  the 
soldier  is  pensioned,  constitutes  a  large  part  of  the  degree  of  his 
present  disability;  but  inasmuch  as  such  additional  cause  of 
disability  is  not  a  result  of  said  wounds,  as  alleged,  nor  otherwise 
of  service  origin,  its  existence  can  not  affect  the  rate  in  the  case. 

12.  Paralysis  and  Lightning  Stroke. 

Pathological  sequence — Lightning  stroke  and  paralysis.  (Emily 
C.  Bridge,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  162.) 

The  records  of  the  War  Department  show  that  soldier  in- 
curred a  sunstroke  while  in  the  service,  and  the  evidence  shows 
that  he  was  struck  by  lightning  and  that  there  was  a  paralytic 
condition  of  the  left  leg  immediately  following;  that  he  con- 
tinuously thereafter  manifested  symptoms  6f  paralysis  of  left 
side  and  was  mentally  weak,  the  history  of  the  case  unmistak- 
ably pointing  to  a  disease  of  the  brain.  He  died  from  a  brain 
lesion,  followed  by  general  paralysis,  June  26,  1899. 

Held:  That  as  there  is  a  strong  element  of  doubt  as  to  the 
cause  of  the  fatal  brain  trouble,  such  doubt  will  be  resolved  in 
favor^of  the  claimant  and  the  death  cause  will  be  accepted  as 
due  to  soldier's  military  service. 

13.  Paralysis  and  Rheumatism. 
Pathological  sequence — Aid  and  attendance — Rate.     (George   R. 

Beatty,  13P.  D.,  192.) 

Appellant  is  now  pensioned  at  the  second-grade  rate  for 
"  rheumatism  and  resulting  disease  of  left  knee  and  shoulder 
and  partial  paralysis."  It  was  found  at  the  last  medical  exami- 
nation to  which  he  was  subjected,  and  from  the  date  of  which 


408  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

said  grade  rate  was  allowed,  that  he  was  ^Iso  suifering  from 
"  a  modified  general  paresis,"  and  from  locomotor  ataxia ;  but 
neither  of  these  conditions  can  be  accepted  as  a  sequel  of  pen- 
sioned causes,  nor  are  they  otherwise  established  as  of  service 
origin.  Although  a  rating  of  but  $30  per  month  (second  grade) 
was  recommended  in  the  certificate  of  such  examination,  the 
objective  conditions  described  therein,  and  the  collateral  evi- 
dence on  file  as  well,  vshow  a  condition  of  total  and  permanent 
helplessness,  due,  however,  in  part  to  said  nonpensioned  causes; 
but  after  careful  consideration  of  all  the  facts  in  the  case  the 
Department  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  allowance  of  the  $50  rate 
instead  of  the  second-grade  rate  from  the  date  of  said  examina- 
tion was  warranted  by  reason  of  causes  on  account  of  which 
he  was  pensioned,  notwithstanding  the  said  recommendation 
of  the  examining  surgeon. 

14.  Blindness  and  Chronic  Diarrhea. 

Pathological  sequence — Disability — Evidence — Demonstration — 
Blindness.     (Harvey  Keed,  13  P.  D.,  307.) 

A  pensionable  degree  of  disability  from  "  chronic  diarrhea  and 
'  gunshot  wound  of  face  resulting  in  impaired  vision  of  left  eye  " 
has  not  been  shown  since  the  date  of  filing  the  claim  on  account 
of  such  alleged  causes. 

Held:  That  occasional  subacute  attacks  of  diarrhea  at  more  or 
less  infrequent  intervals  do  not,  in  the  absence  of  any  patholog- 
ical lesion  of  the  digestive  organs  or  of  the  alimentary  canal  or 
tract,  constitute  a  pensionable  degree  of  disability;  that  neither 
in  this  claim,  nor  in  any  other  claim  for  pension  on  account  of 
either  monocular  or  binocular  blindness,  can  the  report  of  a  com- 
petent expert  examining  surgeon  (specialist),  who,  by  the  use  of 
approved  methods,  demonstrates  that  the  claimant  is  a  malin- 
gerer, be  controverted  by  the  mere  dicta  of  another  specialist,  or 
other  specialists,  or  of  any  number  of  physicians  who  have  em- 
ployed no  such  tests,  but  base  their  opinions  upon  the  subjective 
symptoms  or  history  of  the  case,  as  related  by  the  claimant,  and 
that  lay  testimony  is  of  no  value  whatever  in  such  class  of  claims. 

Neither  blindness  nor  any  serious  impairment  of  vision  of  the 
left  eye  is  shown  to  exist  in  this  case,  nor  could  any  loss  of  vision 
due  to  optic  neuritis  have  been  caused  in  the  manner  alleged. 

15.  TJlcerations  and  Syncope. 

Pathological  sequence — Ulcerations  and  syncope — Evidence — Bur- 
den of  proof — Death  cause.  (Mary  M.  Johnston,  widow,  13 
P.  D.,  112.) 

The  soldier — who  was  pensioned  at  the  second-grade  rate  for 
"  injury  to  right  leg  and  resulting  ulceration,"  alleged  to  have 


I 


PEKSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  409 


been  incurred  in  18G2 — died  suddenly  on  the  night  of  June  10, 
1899,  while  entirely  alone  and  without  having  previously  ex- 
hibited any  symptoms  of  apparent  illness.  It  is  contended  that 
his  death  was  caused  by  syncope,  due  to  septicaemia  resulting 
from  said  condition  of  right  leg. 

The  facts  presented  in  the  case,  however,  are  such  as  in  the 
judgpient  of  the  Department  preclude  the  idea  that  the  soldier's 
death  was  caused  in  the  manner  alleged,  and  although  such  facts 
fail  to  satisfactorily  show  the  actual  cause  of  death  the  burden  of 
proof  on  that  point  does  not  rest  with  the  Government  in  order 
that  the  contentions  of  the  appellant  may  be  held  to  be  untenable. 

16.  Gunshot  Wound,  Malarial  Poisoning,  and  Disease  of  the  Spine. 
Pathological  sequence — Gutwhot  wound,  malarial  /poisoning,  and 

disease  of  spine  —  Locomotor  ataxia  or  ataxic  paraplegia. 
(George  W.  Wheeler,  14  P.  D.,  542.) 

This  claimant's  disease  of  the  spinal  cord  being,  under  the 
evidence  and  medical  authorities  cited,  of  uncertain  diagnosis  and 
etiology,  but  a  disease  which,  however  diagnosed,  may,  under  said 
medical  authorities,  be  possibl}^  due  pathologically  to  one  or  more 
of  the  causes  on  account  of  which  he  is  pensioned,  and  other  pos- 
sible causes  of  such  disease  being  shown  by  the  evidence  not  to 
exist  or  to  have  existed,  a  pathological  connection  between  said 
disease  and  said  causes  on  account  of  which  he  is  pensioned  should 
be  held  to  be  sufficiently  established  in  his  claim  for  increase  on 
account  of  said  disease  alleged  as  such  result. 

A  medical  sequence  need  not  more  than  any  other  fact  be  estab- 
lished beyond  all  doubt,  but  a  reasonable  probability  from  all  the 
facts,  circumstances,  and  conditions  shown  that  a  certain  patho- 
logical relationship  exists  in  the  case  is  sufficient. 

In  determining  the  question  of  such  probability  the  opinions  of 
the  medical  division  of  the  Pension  Bureau  are  only  advisory  to 
and  not  binding  upon  either  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  or  the 
Secretary,  w^hose  sole  and  exclusive  province  it  is  to  decide  all 
such  questions  for  themselves  upon  the  entire  evidence,  such 
opinions,  and  medical  authorities. 

Reopening  of  a  rejected  claim  for  increase  upon  affidavits  filed 
more  than  90  days  after  notice  of  such  rejection  is  proper  under 
the  rules  of  practice,  and  such  affidavits  may  not  properly  be  con- 
sidered on  appeal  as  to  the  merits  of  said  rejection. 

17.  Catarrh  and  Bronchitis. 

Pathological  sequence— ^ atarrh  and  hronchitis — Practice.     (Wil- 
liam H.  Carr,  14  P.  D.,  201.) 

Chronic  nasopharyngeal  catarrh  av  as  the  only  existing  affec- 
tion of  the  respiratory  orgaps,  and  bronchitis  is  not  accepted  as 


410  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

a  result  thereof,  but  rather  the  result  of  disease  of  heart.  Under 
the  evidence  and  the  practice  of  the  Bureau  the  approval  for  dis- 
ease of  the  respiratory  organs  Avas  too  broad  and  not  Avarranted. 

18.  Insanity  and  Sunstroke. 

Pathological   sequence — Insanity — Sunstroke — Rate,        (John     B. 
Shafer,  insane,  14  P.  D.,  89.) 

The  existing  insanity,  first  positively  shown  in  1883,  was  not  a 
result  of  sunstroke,  as  alleged,  which  occurred  in  1802.  The 
present  rate  of  pension  is  adequate  for  the  pensioned  disabilities. 

19.  Paralysis  Agitans  and  Chronic  Diarrhea. 

Pathological  sequence.     (George  B.  Cock,  10  P.  D.,  39.) 

Neither  paralysis  agitans  nor  cerebro-spinal  sclerosis  can  be 
accepted  as  a  pathological  sequence  of  chronic  diarrhea  or  any 
sequelae  thereof. 

20.  Cause  of  Disability. 

Pathological  sequence — Cause  of  disability.     (George  W.  Mowery, 
11  P.  D.,  307.) 

The  certificate  of  medical  examination  shows  the  condition  of 
appellant's  eyes,  on  account  of  which  he  claims  a  pension,  is  due 
to  congenital  refractive  errors  and  not  to  his  military  service, 
and  that  the  rejection  of  his  claim  under  the  general  law  was 
therefore  correct.     Action  affirmed. 

Rate — Pathological  sequence — Examining  surgeons^  ratings.     (An- 
drew G.  Cunningham,  11  P.  D.,  317.) 

The  appellant,  who  is  pensioned  at  the  rate  of  $12  per  month 
for  rheumatism  and  resulting  disease  of  heart,  filed  a  claim  for 
increase,  w^herein  he  alleged  that  varicose  veins  of  both  legs  had 
resulted  from  disease  of  heart,  and  claimed  that  inasmuch  as  the 
board  of  surgeons  by  which  he  was  examined  pursuant  to  said 
claim  had  rated  his  disabilities  at  third  grade  ($24  per  month), 
he  was  legally  entitled  to  such  rate  from  the  date  of  such  exami- 
nation. 

Held:  That  the  existing  rate  in  the  case  was  fully  commensu- 
rate with  the  degree  of  disability  found  at  said  examination  as  a 
result  of  rheumatism  and  disease  of  heart ;  that  the  varicose  veins 
of  both  legs  have  not  been  showm  to  be  a  sequence,  either  from  a 
pathologic  or  mechanical  standpoint,  of  disease  of  heart,  and 
that  no  authority  to  determine  what  rate  or  rates  of  pension  shall 
or  shall  not  be  allowed  in  any  claim,  or  class  of  claims,  for  pen- 
sion has  ever  been  conferred  upon  examining  surgeons,  either  by 
law,  rule,  or  regulation. 


I 


I 


I 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  411 

Pathological  sequence — Blindness — Disease  of  heart.  (James  Fitz- 
garield,  11  P.  D.,  462.) 

The  soldier  is  a  pensioner  on  account  of  disease  of  heart,  in- 
jury to  right  shoulder  and  resulting  muscular  atrophy,  paralysis 
of  right  arm  and  resulting  total  disability  of  same.  He  is  totally 
blind  from  glaucoma,  which  is  alleged  to  be  a  result  of  neuralgia, 
caused  by  a  fall  from  his  horse,  by  which  he  incurred  the  injury 
to  his  shoulder. 

The  facts  in  the  case,  supported  by  medical  authority,  warrant 
the  conclusion  that  said  blindness  is  due  to  spinal  injury,  or  to 
disease  of  heart,  or  both.     Action  reversed. 

21.  Tuberculosis  and  Catarrh. 

Death  cause  —  Pathological  sequence  —  Catarrh.  (Florence  E. 
Foster,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  480.) 

Soldier's  death  from  pulmonary  tuberculosis  can  not  be  ac- 
cepted as  due  to  nasopharyngeal  catarrh,  on  account  of  which  he 
was  pensioned  at  $2  per  month,  and  it  not  appearing  that 
catarrh  was  otherwise  a  factor  in  the  death  cause,  nor  that  said 
cause  was  the  result  of  his  army  service,  the  rejection  of  the 
claim  on  that  ground  was  proper. 

22.  Disease  of  Kidneys — Special  Act. 

Pathological  sequence — Disease  of  kidneys — Gunshot  wound — 
Rheumatism — Diarrhea — Malarial  poisoii — Special  act.  (Net- 
tie N.  Seaver,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  249.) 

The  fatal  disease  of  kidneys  was  evidently  of  recent  origin 
and  not  in  any  way  pathologically  connected  with  the  affections 
which  Avere  accepted  as  of  service  origin — gunshot  wound  of 
right  arm,  rheumatism,  diarrhea,  and  malarial  poisoning.  None 
of  said  affections  appears  to  have  been  a  material  factor  in  caus- 
ing the  soldier's  death. 

The  claimant  or  beneficiary  under  a  special  act  of  Congress 
which  is  defective  must  look  to  Congress  for  relief. 

23.  Chronic  Ascending  Neuritis. 

Pathological  sequence — Chronic  ascending  neuritis.  (Enoch  Alex- 
ander, 11  P.  D.,  151.) 

Appellant  is  now  pensioned  at  $36  per  month  on  account  of 
a  gunshot  wound  of  left  leg  and  resulting  total  disability  of 
same.  The  right  leg  is  also  shown  to  be  totally  disabled  and  it 
is  claimed  by  the  appellant  to  be  a  result  of  the  condition  of  his 
left  leg. 

It  is  satisfactorily  shown  that  the  total  disability  of  the  left 
leg  was  caused  by  a  chronic  ascending  neuritis,  produced  by  the 


412  PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

gunshot  wound,  and  that  the  disease  has  crossed  over  and  in- 
volved the  right  leg,  and  the  disability  resulting  from  said 
neuritis  is  such  as  would  warrant  the  allowance  of  a  higher  rate 
of  pension  than  he  now  receives.     Action  reversed. 

24.  Amputation — Paralysis  Agitans. 

Pathological  sequence — Aynputation — Paralysis  agitans — Aid  and 
attendance — Evidence.     (James  Duross,  13  P.  D.,  222.) 

The  soldier  is  pensioned  at  the  rate  of  $45  per  month  for  gun- 
shot wound  of  right  arm,  resulting  in  amputation  so  near  the 
shoulder  joint  as  to  prevent  the  use  of  an  artificial  limb. 

He  developed  paralysis  agitans  one  month  after  amputation, 
and  as  the  science  of  pathology  warrants  the  acceptance  of  said 
disease  as  a  result  of  amputation,  same  can  be  so  accepted  under 
the  circumstances  shown. 

The  evidence  and  the  report  of  the  medical  examination,  made 
October  21,  1902,  show  that  he  requires  the  frequent  and  period- 
ical personal  aid  and  attendance  of  another  person  to  the  extent 
that  he  can  neither  dress  nor  undress  himself  unaided;  that  he 
is  compelled  to  have  his  food  prepared  or  cut  up  for  him  at  the 
table  before  he  can  eat  it,  and  that  he  requires  such  frequent  and 
periodical  aid  and  attendance  of  another  person  in  other  ways 
by  reason  of  the  conditions  named,  hence  he  is  entitled  to  the 
next  available  rate,  or  $50  per  month,  from  the  date  of  the  ex- 
amination showing  such  degree  of  disability. 

25.  Paralysis — Neuralgia. 

Pathological  sequence — Paralysis — Neuralgia.  (Abram  J.  Rus- 
sell, 15  P.  D.,  139.) 

Paralysis  (hemiplegia)  occurring  at  the  age  of  62  years,  and 
thirty- four  years  after  discharge,  can  not  be  accepted  as  a  sequel 
of  neuralgia  or  piles  for  which  soldier  was  pensioned. 

26.  Paraplegia,  Neuritis,  and  Gunshot  Wound  of  Leg. 

Paraplegia — Neuritis — Gunshot  wound  of  leg.  (Christian  Kinter, 
15  P.  D.,  440.) 

Appellant  has  paraplegia  or  paralysis  of  both  limbs  from  the 
hips  down.  There  being  no  other  apparent  cause  shown  for  this 
condition,  it  is  concluded  that  the  same  is  due  to  a  gunshot 
wound,  on  account  of  which  he  is  pensioned,  the  missile  entering 
a  little  below  the  anterior  spinous  process  of  the  ilium,  passing 
backward  and  downward,  emerging  a  little  above  and  posterior 
to  the  trochanter  major,  in  close  proximity  to  the  sciatic  nerve 
of  the  right  leg,  injuring  the  same,  resulting  in  ascending  neu- 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  413 

ritis,  and  that  this  inflammatory  condition  crossed  to  the  sciatic 
nerve  of  the  left  side  through  the  sacral  plexus,  producing  a 
descending  neuritis  of  the  sciatic  nerve  in  the  left  leg,  hence  a 
paraplegic  condition  of  both  legs. 

27.  Disease  of  Kidneys  and  Injury  to  Ankle. 

Disease  of  kidneys — Injury  to  ankle.  (Josephine  Hirsch,  mother, 
15P.  D.,  443.) 

Disease  of  the  kidneys,  from  which  the  sailor  died,  October  5, 
1902,  twenty  days  subsequent  to  his  discharge,  at  the  age  of  18 
years,  in  the. judgment  of  the  Department  was  due  to  injury 
to  right  ankle  and  results  which  occurred  while  in  his  naval 
service  and  in  line  of  duty. 

PARALYSIS. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  12  (i:i  P.  D.,  372). 
See  Increase:  No.  4  (12  P.  D.,  50). 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  Nos.  11,  12,  13,  19,  24,  25   (13  P.  D., 
107,  102,  102;  10  P.  D.,  30;  13  P.  D.,  222;  15  P.  D.,  130). 

PARALYSIS  AGITANS. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  Nos  10,  24  (10  P.  D.,  30;  13  P.  D.,  222). 

PAYMENT  OF  PENSION. 
References. 

See  Guardian  :  Nos.  1,  3  (0  P.  D.,  55;  15  P.  D.,  364). 

See  Insane  Persons:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  100)  ;  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  430). 

Index. 

1.  To  guardian  of  minor  cliilid. 

2.  May  be  adjusted  properly. 

3.  Act  of  March  3,  1800. 

1.  To  Guardian  of  Minor  Child. 

Payment  of  pension — Widow  —  Guardian.  (Josephine  Burns, 
widow,  9  P.  D.,  197.) 

Appellant  filed  an  application  in  behalf  of  herself  and  minor 
children,  and  at  the  same  time  procured  a  next  friend  to  file 
application  as  guardian  for  said  minors.  Her  application  was 
denied  and  that  of  the  guardian  allowed.  After  the  youngest 
child  arrived  at  the  age  of  16  years,  her  case  was  reopened  and 
allowed  to  begin  from  the  time  said  youngest  child  became  16 
years  old.  Claimant  now  asserts  title  to  that  which  was  paid 
to  the  guardian. 

Held:  Her  contention  is  untenable  because  she  procured  the 
filing  of  the  application  by  the  guardian,  received  the  money 
paid  thereunder,  and  disbursed  the  same. 


414  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

2.  May  be  Adjusted  Properly. 

Payment    of   pension — Rating — Section    ^715^    Revised    Statutes-. 
(Joshua  W.  Mattick,  10  P.  D.,  281.) 

Pensions  being  allowed  under  the  general  law  and  act  of  June 
27,  1890,  it  was  proper  to  adjust  the  ratings  so  as  to  prevent 
overpayment  or  double  payment  of  the  same  pension  or  the 
payment  of  both  pensions  for  the  same  period  of  time,  and  such 
deductions  and  reissues  as  avoided  this  and  preserved  to  pen- 
sioner the  highest  ratings  to  w'hich  he  was  adjudged  entitled 
Avere  not  erroneous. 

3.  Act  ot  March  3,  1899. 

Payment  of  pension  under  act  of  March  3^  1899.     (Ellen  Lake  v. 
Daniel  Lake,  13  P.  D.,  22.) 

When  a  pensioner  refuses  to  execute  his  pension  voucher  for 
the  purpose  of  depriving  his  w4fe  (who  has  been  awarded  one- 
half  of  his  pension  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899)  of  her  part 
of  his  pension,  payment  may  be  made  to  her  upon  her  supple- 
mental voucher  upon  satisfactory  proof  to  the  Commissioner  of 
Pensions  of  the  existence  of  the  pensioner  during  the  period  for 
which  she  claims  payment. 

PAYMENT. 

See  Accrued  Pension:  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  208).. 
See  Attorneys:  No.  12  (11  P.  D.,  49)  ;  No.  18  (10  P.  D.,  403). 
See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  10  (15  P.  D.,  132)  ;  No.  14  (13  P.  D., 
363). 

PENNSYLVANIA  LAWS. 

See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  12  (13  P.  D.,  297). 

See  Marriage  :  No.  2(gg)  (12  P.  D.,  300 ;  14  P.  D.,  212 ;  15  P.  D.,  495)  ; 

No.  3(a)    (12  P.  D.,  106)  ;  No.  4  (9  P.  D.,  497;  12  P.  D.,  326)  ;  No. 

12  (10  P.  D.,  162). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statistics  for  10  P.  D., 

PENDING  CLAIM. 

See  Insane  Persons:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  109). 
See  Limitation:  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  152). 

Pending  claim — Accrued  pension.     (Samuel  Fitzpatrick,  deceased, 
9  P.  D.,  171.) 

Where  soldier's  application  was  not  filed  with  the  Commissioner 
of  Pensions  until  after  his  death,  he  can  not  be  said  to  have  had 
an  application  pending,  and  his  widow  is  not  authorized  under 
any  existing  law  to  prosecute  soldier's  claim  for  pension. 


I 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  415 


PENSION  FUND. 

See  Accrued  Pension:  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  351). 
See  Guardian:  No.  2  (12  P.  I)..  1). 
See  Jurisdiction:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  147). 

PERMANENT  AND  SPECIFIC. 

See  Disability:  No.  10  (14  P.  D.,  182). 

PERSONAL  ALTERCATION. 

See  Line  of  Duty:  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  274,  406). 

PILOT. 

See  Service:  Nos  7,  12  (9  P.  D.,  304,  34<>,  300;  10  P.  D.,  1C2). 


POISON. 


See  Death  Cause:  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  303)  :  No.  3  (9  P.  D.,  439)  ;  No. 

14  (13  P.  D.,  342). 
See  Line  of  Duty:  Nos.  4,  19  (10  P.  D.,  37(>;  12  P.  D.,  209;  15  P.  D., 

315). 


POISONING. 


I 


See  Death  Cause:  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  303)  ;  No.  5  (9  P.  D.,  439)  ;  No. 

14  (13  P.  D.,  342). 
See  Line  of  Duty:  Nos.  4,  19  (10  P.  D.,  376;  12  P.  D.,  269;  15  P.  D., 

315). 


POWER  OF  ATTORNEY. 

See  Attorneys  :  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  143;  14  P.  D.,  186)  ;  No.  5  (9  P.  D., 
19,  38,  362)  ;  No.  15  (9  P.  D.,  338)  ;  No.  16  (13  P.  D.,  27)  ;  No.  18 
(10  P.  D.,  236;  15  P.  D.,  317). 

POWELL'S  BATTALION. 

PowelVs  Battalion^  Mexican  war — Act  January  5,  1893.     (Zach- 
ariah  Winkler,  9  P.  D.,  172.) 

The  provisions  of  the  act  of  Congress  of  January  5,  1893,  pro- 
viding an  increase  of  the  rate  of  pension  granted  on  account  of 
services  in  the  Mexican  war  to  survivors  of  said  war,  are  appli- 
cable to  survivors  of  Pow^elPs  battalion,  Missouri  Mounted  Volun- 
teers, Mexican  war,  who  are .  pensioned  under  the  provisions  of 
the  act  of  March  3,  1891,  for  service  during  the  war  with  Mexico, 
and  such  surviving  members  of  said  organization  are  entitled  to 
receive  the  increased  rate  of  pension  provided  by  said  act  of 
January  5,  1893,  under  the  same  conditions,  limitations,  and 
regulations  as  other  Mexican  war  survivors  who  are  pensioned 
under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  January  29,  1887,     Depart- 


41(3 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


mental  decision  of  June  10,  1896,  on  Brookman's  appeal  (7  P.  D., 
260)  overruled,  and  ruling  No.  237  of  the  Commissioner  of  Pen- 
sions modified. 


PRACTICE. 


References. 

See  Appeals  :  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8  (9  P.  D.,  132,  164 ;  10  P.  D.. 

250,  374:  11  P.  D.,  519;  13  P.  D.,  170,  400 ;  15  P.  D.,  265,  410). 
See  Attorneys  :  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  143 :  14  P.  D.,  186)  ;  No.  2  (15  P.  D.. 

109)  ;  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  191;  13  P.  D.,  413;  14  P.  D.,  83)  ;  No.  10 

(14  P.  D.,  273,  328)  ;  No.  11  (9  P.  D.,  340;  11  P.  D.,  429,  490;  12 

P.  D.,  221)  ;  No.  13  (14  P.  D.,  172,  228)  ;  No.  15  (9  P.  D.,  338)  ; 

No.  19  (14  P.  D..  269). 
See  Bounty  Land:  Nos.  1.  2,  4  (12  P.  D.,  184;  14  P.  D.,  415;  15  P.  D., 

62). 
See  Declarations:  No.  :*  (14  P.  D.,  426)  ;  No.  9  (15  P.  D.,  529). 
See  Dependent  Parent:  Nos.  2,  9  (10  P.  D.,  78;  11  P.  D.,  171,  247; 

15  P.  D.,  18,  100,  106,  172,  194). 
See  Dependent  Widow:  No.  4  (15  P.  D.,  127,  203). 
See  Desertion:  No.  2  (11  P.  D.,  13)  ;  No.  4  (b)   (14  P.  D.,  375). 
See  Disability:  No.  3  (9  P.  D.,  263). 
See  Divorce:  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  208). 
See  Division  of  Pension  :  Nos.  4,  9,  10,  12,  15  (12  P.  D.,  263 ;  13  P.  D., 

134,  270,  347,  424 ;  14  P.  D.,  120,  127,  230,  234,  313,  367,  472 ;  15  P.  D., 

Ill,  132,  218,  298,  557). 
See  Election:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  61). 
See  Evidence:  No.  3  (9  P.  D.,  150). 
See  Fee:  Nos.  2,  12  (9  P.  D.,  39;  10  P.  D.,  167). 
See  Increase:  No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  455). 
See  Jurisdiction  :  Nos.  3,  4  (9  P.  D.,  273;  13  P.  D.,  465). 
See  Pathological  Sequence:  Nos.  1,  17  (9  P.  D.,  444;  12  P.  D.,  425; 

14  P.  D..  201;  15  P.  D.,  150). 
See  Rate  and  Rating  :  Nos.  2,  4,  5,  8  (9  P.  D.,  326,  435;  10  P.  D.,  185, 

397,  414 ;  12  P.  D.,  294,  331 ;  15  P.  D.,  262,  550). 
See  Reduction:  No.  1   (9  P.  D.,  48). 
See  Reimbursement:  No.  3  (12  P.  D.,  289). 
See  Rerating:  Nos.  2,  4,  6  (12  P.  D.,  188;  14  P.  D.,  215;  15  P.  D., 

299,  332,  333). 
See  Service:  No.  25  (13  P.  D.,  288). 


Index. 

1.  Appeals. 

2.  Declarations. 

3.  Medical  examinations. 

4.  Order  352. 

5.  Readjudication. 

6.  Reopening. 

7.  Restoration. 

8.  Attorneys. 

9.  Commencement. 

10.  Dismissal. 

11.  Rates. 


Index— Continued. 

12.  Dropping. 

13.  Commencement      of      in- 

crease. 

14.  Merit    claim    not    consid- 

ered on  appeal  as  to  fee. 

15.  No  benefit. 

16.  Restoration  and  increase 

claims. 

17.  Notice — Act      March      3, 

1899. 

18.  Short  certificate, 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  417 


Practice — Continued. 

Index — Continued. 
19.  Increase. 


20.  Rule  14. 

21.  Rule  16. 

22.  Rule  19. 

23.  Brief       face  —  Combined 

rates. 

24.  Interlocutory  order 


Index — Continued. 

25.  Reconsideration  —  Rule 

13. 

26.  Special  examination. 

27.  Jurisdiction  —  Res     judi- 

cata. 

28.  Legal    points    to    be    ad- 

judicated. 


1.  Appeals. 

Practice — Appeals — Disability .     (William  Rogers,  9  P.  D.,  399.) 

1.  Rule  6  of  Rules  of  Practice  in  appeals  applies  only  to  cases 
Avhere  clerical  errors  are  made  in  rating,  and  not  to  cases  where 
the  question  is  one  of  judgment  on  the  evidence  (Charles  Yokel, 
8P.  D.,  431). 

2.  This  claimant's  capacity  for  earning  a  support  is  not  im- 
paired in  a  degree  entitling  under  said  act  to  any  higher  rate 
than  $6  per  month,  the  rate  of  pension  he  is  now  receiving. 

Practice — Appeals — Neglect — Act  ^  March    3^  1899 — Estoppel. 
(Frederick  W.  Hyatt,  15  P.  D.,  96.) 

^Vhere,  prior  to  the  adoption  of  any  rules  of  practice  governing 
appeals  from  Bureau  action  in  cases  under  the  first  three  pro- 
visos of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  a  pensioner  delayed  his  appeal 
for  over  five  months,,  the  payments  regularly  made  to  a  claimant 
pursuant  to  Bureau  action  prior  to  appeal  will  not,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  fraud  or  mistake  of  fact,  be  disturbed  where  the  only 
Bureau  error  committed  is  error  of  judgment  as  to  the  weight  or 
sufficiency  of  the  evidence. 
Practice — Appeal — Final  action — Brief  face.  (Patrick  Cava- 
naugh,  15  P.  D.,  362.) 

A  decision  that  medical  evidence  filed  in  accordance  with  the 
requirements  of  the  Bureau  under  Order  No.  74  does  not  warrant 
a  medical  examination  of  the  claimant  is  "  final  action."  from 
which  an  appeal  will  lie. 

Such  action  should  have  the  sanction  and  be  vouched  for  by 
the  medical  referee  and  should  be  formally  recorded  upon  the 
"  brief  face." 

2.  Declarations. 

Practice — Declarations — Act    June    ^7,     1890.     (Mary     Haffner, 
widow,  9  P.  D.,  169.) 

This  widow's  declaration  for  pension  under  section  3  of  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890,  executed  in  1897,  can  not  be  held  to  be  a 
duplicate  of  a  declaration  filed  in  1893  under  the  same  act  and 
rejected,  but  should  be  treated  as  a  new  original  declaration. 
The  mere  statement  by  the  Commissioner  in  a  communication  to 
18070—00 27 


418  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

claimant  that  her  claim  had  been  previously  rejected  is  not  a 
rejection  of  the  new  claim  nor  such  final  action  as  furnishes  a 
basis  for  a  new  appeal. 

Practice — Act  of  June  27^  1890 — Section  Jf702^  Revised  Statutes — 
Declarations.     (Josephine  F'uerst,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  486.) 
.    A  claim  for  pension  under  the  general  law  and  a  claim  under 
the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  are  separate  and  distinct  claims,  and  the 
two  can  not  be  prosecuted  under  one  declaration. 

If  a  declaration  for  pension  possesses  all  of  the  essentials  of  and 
is  clearly  intended  as  a  declaration  under  the  general  law,  and 
the  claim  has  been  adjudicated  as  such,  it  can  not  subsequently 
be  made  the  basis  of  a  claim  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  and 
vice  versa. 

3.  Medical  Examinations. 

Practice — Act  June  27^  1890 — Medical  examination.  (Charles  A. 
Armstrong,  9  P.  D.,  71.) 

A  medical  examination  should  not  be  held  to  show  the  extent 
of  alleged  disabilities  under  a  declaration  filed  under  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  until  claimant  has  shown  at  least  a  prima  facie 
title  under  said  act. 

4.  Order  352. 

Practice — Increase — Oruer  352.  (John  W.  Granless,  9  P.  D.,  285.) 
Order  No.  352,  issued  by  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  Decem- 
ber 24,  1897,  which  prohibits  the  consideration  of  increase  claims 
within  one  year  of  date  of  last  adjudication  in  the  case,  is  re- 
voked and  set  aside,  and  the  rule  contained  on  page  52  of 
Walker's  Treatise  on  the  Practice  in  the  Pension  Bureau,  hold- 
ing that  such  claims  would  not  be  adjudicated  until  six  months 
after  the  allowance  of  the  original  claim,  though  when  declara- 
tions therefor  were  filed  claimants  should  be  ordered  for  exami- 
nation as  soon  as  practicable,  reestablished. 

Practice — Increase — Order  No.  352.  (George  Buck,  jr.,  9  P.  D., 
290.) 

As  order  No.  352,  from  the  enforcement  of  w^hich  this  appeal 
was  filed,  has  been  revoked  and  set  aside,  the  contentions  of 
appellant  are  no  longer  tenable.  The  appeal  is  therefore  dis- 
missed. 

5.  Readjudication. 

Practice — Readjudication — Appeal.  (Leroy  F.  Wood,  9  P.  D.,  64.) 
Under  departmental  decision  in  the  case  of  James  Quigg  (8 
P.  D.,  248),  claimant  should  first  make  application  to  the  Pen- 
sion Bureau  for  readjudication  in  accordance  with  the  provisions 
of  the  act  of  March  6,  1896.  As  such  application  has  not  been 
made,  the  motion  for  reconsideration  is  overruled. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  419 

6.  Reopening. 

Practice — Reopening.     (Luther  Case,  9  P.  D.,  72.) 

As  a  matter  of  practice  a  claimant  is  entitled  to  file  at  any 
time  new  evidence  and  request  action  thereon  by  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Pensions.  If  said  new  evidence,  either  considered 
separately  or  in  connection  with  previously  fiJed  evidence,  es- 
tablishes a  prima  facie  case,  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  will 
order  a  new  medical  examination  as  a  matter  of  course,  and 
after  the  rej^ort  of  said  examination  has  been  received  will  take 
action  on  all  of  the  evidence.  If  a  request  is  made  to  the  Com- 
missioner of  Pensions  for  a  new  medical  examination  without 
the  filing  of  new  evidence,  such  rejection  goes  to  the  sound  dis- 
cretion of  that  official,  who  will,  nevertheless,  take  action  upon 
such  request.  In  such  cases  an  appeal  will  lie  to  the  Secretary 
only  from  the  action  taken  by  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions. 

Practice — Reopening — Medical  examinations.     (Andrew  G.  Clark, 
10  P.  D.,  271.) 

Where,  under  the  general  law,  claim  for  pension  is  made  on 
account  of  general  debility,  a  medical  examination  is  held  which 
discloses  no  cause  of  disability,  and  thereupon  the  claim  is  re- 
jected, the  fact  that  a  condition  of  general  debility  is  shown  to 
exist  subsequently  does  not  warrant  action  reopening  the  claim. 

Practice — Reopening — Act  of  March  6',  1896.     (William  Heinrichs, 
10  P.  D.,  321.) 

The  refusal  to  consider  the  widow's  application  for  readjudica- 
tion  of  her  husband's  claim  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
the  act  of  March  6,  189G,  on  the  ground  that  he  (the  husband) 
had  no  claim  for  read  judication  on  file  at  the  date  of  his  death, 
was  error. 

A  rejected  claim  may  be  reopened  at  any  time,  upon  the  filing 
of  proper  evidence  for  that  purpose,  either  by  the  original  claim- 
ant or  by  the  person  who  succeeds  to  his  rights. 

Practice — Reopening — Limitation — Order     192.       (William      W. 
Wilds,  11  P.  D.,  95.) 

The  certificate  of  medical  examination  made  under  the  claim 
for  increase  does  not  show  a  degree  of  disability  due  to  pensioned 
causes  that  is  equivalent  to  the  loss  of  a  hand  or  a  foot  for  man- 
ual labor,  which  must  be  shown  before  the  appellant  can  receive 
the  next  higher  rate  of  pension.  As  the  evidence  referred  to  by 
the  appellant  was  not  filed  within  ninety  days  after  the  letter 
of  rejection  had  been  mailed,  the  action  of  the  Bureau  in  refusing 
to  reopen  the  rejected  claim  was  proper  and  in  accordance  with 
the  rules  of  practice.     Actions  affirmed. 


420  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

Practice — Reopening — Limitation.  (Jonathan  Kinsey,  11  P.  D., 
112.) 

The  rule  of  limitation  for  reopening  rejected  increase  claims 
in  cases  where  an  appeal  was  filed  before  the  rule  had  run  is  sus- 
pended during  the  period  from  the  date  of  filing  the  appeal  and 
the  date  of  the  decision  of  the  Department  thereon. 

7.  Restor option. 

Practice — Restoration — Renewal.  (James  W.  Murray,  9  P.  D., 
210.) 

Pensioner  was  receiving  $12  per  month  on  account  of  loss  of 
sight  of  left  eye,  and  was  dropped  from  the  rolls  in  1895.  He 
filed  claims  for  renewal  and  was  restored  to  the  rolls  from  Octo- 
ber 20,  1896,  at  $6  per  month,  for  the  same  disability.  The  med- 
ical referee  expresses  the  opinion  that  he  should  not  have  been 
dropped,  but  his  rating  only  reduced.  Refusal  to  restore  him 
from  date  of  dropping  at  reduced  rating  is  based  on  the  fact  that 
he  has  only  filed  claim  for  renewal  and  not  for  restoration.  It  is 
held  that  this  action  is  chiefly  technical,  that  the  words  "  re- 
newal "  and  "  restoration  "  in  applications  are  generally  inter- 
changeable, and  that  this  claimant,  having  applied  for  renewal, 
and  admitted  to  be  entitled  to  restoration,  should  be  restored 
from  the  date  of  dropping  without  other  application. 

Practice — Restoration — Increase.     (Charles  I.  Reed,  9  P.  D.,  288.) 
A  claim  for  restoration  can  not  be  regarded  as  a  claim  for  in- 
crease.    (Thomas  Mallon,  8  P.  D.,  208.) 

8.  Attorneys. 

Practice  —  A  ttorneys  —  Special  examinations.  ( Ascha  Hughes, 
mother,  10  P.  D.,  390.) 

The  relations  between  attorney  and  client  in  a  pension  claim 
are  not  such  as  to  give  the  attorney  all  of  the  same  rights  that 
he  would  have  under  the  common  law. 

The  mission  of  and  the  procedure  under  a  special  examination 
is  such  as  to  preclude  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  presence  of  an 
attorney  to  protect  either  his  own  or  his  claimant's  rights.  The 
prevailing  practice  of  allowing  an  attorney  to  be  present  and  to 
take  part  in  a  special  examination,  if  so  requested  by  claimant, 
is  all  that  is  necessary  under  the  circumstances,  for  the  Govern- 
ment is  not  in  any  wise  a  defendant  in  such  proceedings. 

9.  Conunencement. 

Practice — Commencement — Act  March  6, 1896.  (Preston  M.  Rohn, 
10  P.  D.,  73.) 

"  Whenever  a  claim  for  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
has  been  or  shall  hereafter  be  rejected,  suspended,  or  dismissed. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  421 

and  a  new  application  shall  have  been  or  shall  hereafter  be 
allowed  in  such  claim,  such  pension  shall  date  from  the  time  of 
filing  the  first  application,  provided  the  evidence  in  the  case 
shall  show  a  pensionable  disability  to  have  existed  or  to  exist  at 
the  time  of  filing  such  first  application,"  whether  claimant  has 
invoked  the  aid  of  the  act  of  March  6,  1896,  or  not. 

10.  Dismissal. 

Practice — Dismissal — Appeals — Act  June  27^  1890.      (Charles  A. 
Sampson,  10  P.  D.,  458.) 

The  filing  of  a  second  apj^lication  for  pension  under  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  while  an  appeal  from  the  rejection  of  a  former 
application  is  pending  is  not  a  good  ground  for  dismissing  the 
appeal  unless  the  applicant  expressly  or  impliedly  asks  to  have 
the  first  application  reconsidered. 

Medical  examination  under  the  first  application  showed  no 
disability  except  a  slight  affection  of  the  heart,  and  that  was  not 
found  at  a  subsequent  examination.  Age,  57  years;  height,  5 
feet  10^  inches;  weight,  165  pounds. 

Held:  That  a  pensionable  disability  did  not  exist  at  the  date 
of  filing  the  first  application. 
Practice — Appeals — Dismissals.     (Nancy  Ritter  v.  Abraham  Rit- 
ter,  13  P.  D.,  40.) 

Pensioner's  contention  that  claimant  was  not  in  necessitous 
circumstances  having  been  conceded  by  the  Bureau  after  special 
examination,  the  appeal  is  dismissed. 

Claimant  is  entitled  to  thirty  days  from  receipt  of  a  copy  of 
this  order  in  which  to  appeal  from  the  last  Bureau  action. 
Practice — Dismissal — Act  March  3,  1899.     (Cora  A.  Fanning  v. 
Edwin  P.  Fanning,  13  P.  D.,  161.) 

Claimant's  contention  that  she  was  in  necessitous  circumstances 
having  been  conceded  by  the  Bureau  after  special  examination, 
her  appeal  is  dismissed. 

Pensioner  is  entitled  to  thirty  days  from  receipt  of  a  copy  of 
this  order  in  which  to  appeal  from  the  last  Bureau  action,  under 
the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  conceding  her  contention.  (See  Ritter 
V.  Ritter,  13  P.  D.,  40.) 
Practice — Dismissal — Act  of  March  3,  1899 — Division  of  pension. 
(Annie  Delozier  v.  Luke  A.  Delozier,  13  P.  D.,  176.) 

The  contention  of  the  pensioner  appellant  having  been  con- 
ceded by  the  Bureau  January  5,  1903,  his  appeal  is  dismissed 
and  claimant  allowed  thirty  days  in  which  to  appeal  from  the 
Bureau  action  dropping  her  name  from  the  rolls. 


422  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Practice — Dismissal — Division   of  pensions — Act  March  J,  1899. 
(Kachel  Melton  v.  Austin  P.  Melton,  i:^  P.  D.,  211.) 

When,  after  appeal  in  cases  under  the  first,  second,  or  third 
provisos  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  the  case  is  remanded  to  the 
Bureau  for  further  action,  readjudication,  and  report,  and  the 
Bureau  reports  that  the  action  appealed  from  is  receded  from, 
or  that  the  contention  of  the  appellant  is  conceded  to  be  well 
taken,  the  appeal  will  be  dismissed  and  the  appellee  will  be 
entitled  to  thirty  days  in  which  to  appeal  from  the  adverse  Bu- 
reau action,  during  which  period  suspension  of  payment  of  the 
one-half  of  the  pension  in  controversy  will  be  continued,  unless 
the  right  of  appeal  is  sooner  waived  by  the  appellee. 

Appellant's  contention  that  he  did  not  desert  claimant  having 
been  conceded  by  the  Bureau  in  this  case,  after  special  examina- 
tion the  appeal  is  dismissed. 
Practice — Dismissal — Rule  20 — Act  March   3,  1899.     (Nancy  E. 
Lynch  v.  Philip  Lynch,  13  P.  D.,  347.) 

Claimant's  contention  in  her  appeal  having  been  conceded  by 
the  Bureau,  after  special  examination,  and  her  claim  allowed, 
her  appeal  is  dismissed  in  accordance  with  rule  20  of  Practice, 
and  departmental  decisions  in  the  cases  of  Ritter  v.  Ritter  (13 
P.  D.,40)  ;  Fanning  v.  Fanning  (Ibid.,  161)  ;  Delozier  v.  Delozier 
(Ibid.,  176)  ;  and  Melton  v.  Melton  (Ibid.,  211). 

11.  Rates. 

Practice — Rates — Disability.     (Chauncey  Davis,  10  P.  D.,  12.) 

1.  Rule  6  of  the  second  division  of  the  Rules  of  Practice  was 
never  intended  to  apply  except  in  cases  of  such  errors  of  rating 
as  were  patent  upon  their  face,  and  wdiich  would  naturally  be 
corrected  by  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  upon  his  attention 
being  called  to  such  errors;  but  where  the  determination  of  a 
rate  is  the  result  of  judgment  on  the  evidence,  and  not  merely 
the  result  of  a  clerical  mistake,  the  rule  has  no  application. 

2.  As  the  medical  examinations  show  no  appreciable  disability, 
a  rate  of  $6  per  month  is  adequate  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
though  claimant  is  60  years  of  age  and  his  system  is  relaxing  by 
reason  thereof. 

12.  Dropping. 

Ms.harge — Desertion — Practice.      (Jerome   Woodin,   alias   Frank 
Allen,  11  P.  D.,  13.) 

In  1891  pension  was  allowed  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
when  the  practice  required  only  a  final  honorable  discharge  from 
the  service;  therefore  the  desertion  of  an  applicant  for  pension 
under  said  act  from  his  first  service  was  no  bar  to  pension.     The 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  423 

practice  having  been  changed  so  as  to  require  an  honorable  dis- 
charge from  all  service  contracted  to  be  performed  during  the 
war  of  the  rebellion,  pensioner's  name  was  properly  dropped 
from  the  rolls  on  the  ground  that  he  was  a  deserter. 

13.  Commencement  of  Increase. 

Practice — Act  June  27^  1890 — Commencement — Increase.      (Am- 
brose T.  Sanguinette,  11  P.  D.,  451.) 

In  the  adjudication  .of  an  original  claim  for  pension  under  the 
second  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  wherein  several  decla- 
rations have  been  filed,  upon  the  allowance  of  the  claim  the  pen- 
sion must  commence  from  the  date  of  filing  the  declaration  first 
filed  at  a  time  when  a  pensionable  condition  was  shown  to  exist ; 
but  if,  at  the  time  of  the  adjudication  of  such  claim,  a  certificate 
of  medical  examination  made  under  the  claim  shows  a  condi- 
tion entitling  claimant  to  a  higher  rate  of  pension  than  existed 
at  the  time  of  the  filing  of  the  declaration  under  which  the  allow^- 
ance  was  made  (such  original  allowance  being  below  the  maxi- 
mum rate)  the  rate  of  pension  should  be  increased  from  the  date 
of  such  certificate  of  medical  examination  (modifying  para- 
graph 6  on  page  95  of  A  Treatise  on  the  Practice  of  the  Pension 
Bureau,  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  on  April  9, 
1898). 

14.  Merit  Claim  not  Considered  on  Appeal  as  to  Fee. 

Practice — Appeal — Fee  and  merit  claim.     (James  Hughes,  father, 
claimant,  T.  W.  Tallmadge,  attorney,  11  P.  D.,  325.) 

The  action  of  the  Bureau  in  a  claim  for  pension  upon  its 
merits  can  not  be  reviewed  upon  appeal  from  action  of  the 
Bureau  in  the  matter  of  fee. 

15.  No  Benefit. 

Practice — Rejection — No    benefit — Disahility.      (Martin    Wagner, 
IIP.  D.,  455.) 

1.  A  rating  of  $6  per  month  is  not  commensurate  with  dis- 
abilities evidenced  by  underweight,  emaciation  caused  by  mal- 
nutrition and  neurasthenia,  nasal  catarrh,  and  a  severe  case  of 
bronchial  catarrh. 

2.  A  claim  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  which  is  not  fully 
legally  adjudicated  has  not  reached  final  action. 

3.  No  claim  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  should  be  rejected 
on  the  so-called  ground  of  "  no  benefit,"  but  the  pensioner  should 
be  allowed  to  elect  under  which  law  he  will  draw  his  pension, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  ratings  approved  "or  or 
allowed  under  each  law  are  not  the  same. 


424  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

16.  Restoration  and  Increase  Claims. 

Practice — Act  of  March  6',  1896 — Increase — Restoration.     (Andrew 
J.  Brown,  11  P.  D.,  122.) 

The  practice  of  refusing  to  consider  a  claim  for  restoration  to 
a  former  rate,  or  one  which  invokes  the  act  of  March  6,  1896, 
when  such  are  included  in  a  claim  for  increase  under  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  is  unsound  practice.  Paragraph  3,  page  102,  and 
paragraph  1,  page  103,  of  "A  treatise  on  the  practice  of  the  Pen- 
sion Bureau,"  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  on  April 
9,  1898,  are  accordingly  amended. 

17.  Notice— Act  March  3,  1899. 

Practice — Appeal — Notice — Act  of  March  3,  1899.     (Hantch   v. 
Hantch,  12P.  D.,44.) 

Appeals  in  claims  under  the  first,  second,  and  third  provisions 
of  the  act  of  March  3, 1899,  must  be  accompanied  by  due  proof  of 
service  of  notice  of  the  appeal  upon  the  appellee,  before  such 
appeal  will  be  docketed  and  considered  as  an  appeal,  and  the 
failure  to  furnish  such  proof  is  ground  for  the  dismissal  of  the 
appeal.  (See  Ellis  i\  Ellis,  11  P.  D.,  288;  Conover  v.  Conover, 
11  P.  D.,  524;  and  Loughry  v.  Loughry,  11  P.  D.,  523.) 
Practice — Notice  of  appeal — Service — Act  of  March  3, 1899.  (Har- 
riet A.  Van  Houten  v.  Ralph  R.  Van  Houten,  12  P.  D.,  157.) 

In  the  absence  of  due  proof  of  service  upon  the  appellee,  or  his 
or  her  attorney,  of  a  copy  of  an  appeal  from  Bureau  action  under 
the  first,  second,  or  third  provisos  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899, 
there  being  no  waiver  of  notice,  or  appearance  by  or  on  behalf  of 
the  appellee,  the  appeal  w^ll  be  dismissed.  (See  Ellis  v.  Ellis, 
11  P.  D.,  288;  Loughry  v.  Loughry,  Ibid.,  523;  Conover  v.  Con- 
over, Ibid.,  524.) 

In  future  such  appeals,  unaccompanied  by  due  proof  of  service, 
in  the  absence  of  waiver  of  notice  or  appearance  on  the  part  of  the 
appellee,  will  not  be  filed  or  docketed,  but  will  be  promptly  re- 
turned to  appellant,  or  his  or  her  attorney  of  record,  for  com- 
pliance with  Rule  14  of  Practice,  approved  November  2,  1901. 

When  the  appeal  is  perfected  by  due  proof  of  service,  it  will  be 
filed,  docketed,  and  numbered,  and  the  Bureau  of  Pensions,  the 
appellant,  and  appellee  promptly  notified  thereof,  in  accordance 
with  Rule  15  of  Practice,  approved  November  2,  1901. 
Practice — Appeals — Act  of  March  3, 1899.  ( Addie  Yates  v.  David 
Yates,  12  P.  D.,  225.) 

Appeals  in  cases  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  when  per- 
fected in  accordance  with  Rule  14,  Rules  of  Practice,  which  re- 
quires that  they  should  be  accompanied  by  proof  of  service  of  the 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  425 

same  on  the  appellee,  will  be  transmitted  to  the  Bureau  of  Pen- 
sions, whereupon  the  necessary  steps  for  the  suspension  of  pay- 
ment of  half  of  the  pension  due  or  to  become  due  will  be  taken, 
and  thereafter,  not  later  than  thirty  days  from  the  date  of  filing 
the  appeal,  such  appeal,  and  the  papers  in  the  case,  together  with 
the  Commissioner's  report  thereon,  will  be  returned  to  the  Depart- 
ment. 
Practice — Appeal — Rule  2  of  Rules  of  Practice — Division  of  pen- 
sion^ act  of  March  3,  J 899.  (Minerva  C.  Scott  r.  Samuel  Scott, 
12  P.  D.,  411.) 

1.  The  appeal  in  this  case  assigns  no  specific  error  on  the  part 
of  the  Bureau  in  the  allowance  of  the  claim  for  division  of  pen- 
sion, as  required  by  Rule  2  of  Practice,  but  as  an  examination  of 
the  evidence  fails  to  disclose  any  error  in  the  Bureau  action 
appealed  from,  the  same  is  affirmed. 

2.  Good  practice,  as  well  as  a  proper  regard  for  the  rights  of 
the  appellees,  in  cases  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899,  requires  a 
strict  compliance  with  said  rule  2  on  the  part  of  appellants,  and 
in  future  a  failure  on  the  part  of  the  appellants  to  comply  with 
said  rule  will  be  deemed  sufficient  reason  for  dismissing  their 
appeals. 

18.  Short  Certificate. 

Practice — Short  certificate — Disability.  (Charles  L.  Starr,  12 
P.  D.,  254.) 

If  a  soldier,  sailor,  or  marine  who  served  in  the  recent  war 
with  Spain  incurred,  contracted,  or  received  any  cause  or  causes 
of  disability  in  such  service  and  line  of  duty  which  persisted  for 
a  sufficient  length  of  time  subsequent  to  the  dates  of  his  dis- 
charge and  of  filing  his  application  for  pension,  respectively, 
the  duration  of  which  can  be  satisfactorily  determined  by  com- 
petent evidence,  to  amount  to  a  source  of  actual  disability,  there 
is  no  provision  of  law  or  rule  of  practice  by  which  he  can  prop- 
erly be  denied  a  pensionable  status  during  the  time  he  was  so 
disabled  subsequent  to  his  filing  a  formal  application  for  pension : 
Provided^  That  such  pensionable  degree  of  disability  was  not  a 
mere  temporary  condition  of  short  duration,  indefinite  existence, 
and  of  unknown  or  illy-defined  extent.  (See  case  of  Cassilly  C. 
Cook,  12  P.  D.,  188.) 

In  the  event  the  disabilities  which  the  evidence  adduced  in  this 
case  tend  to  show  the  appellant  suffered  from  for  a  period  of 
over  one  year  subsequent  to  the  date  of  filing  his  claim  for 
original  invalid  pension  are,  or  can  be,  established  as  of  service 
origin  in  the  line  of  duty  he  is  entitled  to  a  pension  therefor  from 


426  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

the  date  of  filing  his  said  claim  to  the  date  of  the  medical  exam- 
ination Avhich  tends  to  show  that  a  pensionable  degree  of  dis- 
ability had  ceased  to  exist. 

19.  Increase. 

Practice — Increase — Test  medical  examination — Commencement. 
(Josiah  Morgan,  13  P.  D.,  801.) 

Where  a  claim  for  increase  has  been  rejected,  but  thereafter 
another  test  medical  examination  is  ordered,  such  action  is  a 
reopening  of  the  claim,  and  increase  may  be  allowed  from  the 
date  of  such  last  examination  establishing  an  increased  disability. 
(See  order  No.  22,  par.  8.) 

20.  Rule  14. 

Practice — Notice — Attorney — Act  March  3, 1899.  (Lizzie  Hogg  v. 
Thomas  H.  Hogg,  13  P.  D.,  206.) 

The  evidence  in  this  case  fails  to  show  service  of  a  copy  of 
claimant's  appeal  upon  the  pensioner  or  his  attorney  of  record,  as 
required  by  rule  14  of  Practice. 

Service  of  a  copy  of  the  appeal  upon  pensioner's  attorney  in 
his  invalid  claim,  there  being  no  evidence  tending  to  show  that 
he  was  authorized  to  act  as  his  attorney  in  this  claim  subse- 
quently instituted  by  claimant  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1899, 
and  no  appearance  having  been  entered  by  said  attorney  or  pen- 
sioner in  answer  to  said  appeal,  and  there  being  no  waiver  of 
service,  the  appeal  is  dismissed  under  rule  14  of  Practice,  and 
the  authorities  herein  cited. 

21.  Rule  16. 

Practice^  rule  16 — Act  March  3,  1899 — Division  of  pension — Evi- 
dence.    (Luc}^  M.  Sherman  v.  James  A.  Sherman,  13  P.  D.,  203.) 

Rule  16  of  Practice  does  not  limit  the  right  of  appeal  to 
thirty  days  except  to  the  extent  enumerated  in  said  rule. 

Pensioner  is  60  years  of  age,  with  no  means  of  support,  so  far 
as  appears  from  the  evidence,  but  his  daily  labor  and  a  pension 
of  $16  per  month. 

Claimant  is  about  55  years  of  age  and  the  owner  of  a  10-acre 
farm,  valued  by  her  at  $600,  and  which  furnishes  her  a  home. 

Held :  That  claimant  is  not  shown  to  be  in  necessitous  circum- 
stances within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1899. 

22.  Rule  19. 

Practice — Act  March  3,  1899 — Evidence — Appeal.  (Mollie  A. 
Pick  V.  John  H.  Pick,  13  P.  D.,  299.) 

Claimant  having  failed  for  over  thirty  days,  after  receipt  of 
notification  from  the  Bureau,  to  furnish  evidence  required  as  to 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  427 

her  necessitous  circumstances,  and  there  being  no  satisfactory 
evidence  in  the  case  as  to  her  financial  status,  her  name  was 
properly  dropped  from  the  rolls  January  12,  1903. 

New  or  additional  evidence  upon  the  merits  of  a  claim  for  divi- 
sion of  pension  under  the  act  of  March  3, 1899,  filed  after  the  ap- 
peal can  not  be  considered  on  appeal.  See  Rule  19  of  Practice, 
approved  February  25,  1903. 
Practice — Division  of  pension — Act  March  3, 1899 — Rule  19.  (Lot- 
tie R.  Sheldon  v.  Dwight  J.  Sheldon,  13  P.  D.,  542.) 

The  assignments  of  error  in  this  case  are  general,  not  specific, 
as  required  by  Rule  19  of  Practice,  which  requires  that  the  appeal 
should  briefly,  but  specifically,  state  the  error  of  law  or  fact  com- 
plained of  and  the  grounds  relied  upon  for  reversing  or  modify- 
ing the  Bureau  action  appealed  from. 

This  is  a  rule  of  order  and  convenience,  but  is  not  designed  to 
prevent  the  correction  of  obvious  errors  or  an  affirmance  of  the 
action  appealed  from  where  no  error  is  apparent  from  the  record, 
and  the  Bureau  action  appears  on  inspection  to  have  been  aufiior- 
ized  by  the  evidence  in  the  case  and  in  accordance  with  the  law 
applicable  thereto. 

23.  Brief  Face — Combined  Rates. 

Practice — Rate — Brief  face — Gomhined  rates.  (William  Hanley, 
14  P.  D.,  162.) 

In  1887,  at  a  time  when  the  soldier  was  pensioned  for  "  gun- 
shot wounds  of  left  leg  and  right  thigh,"  he  filed  a  claim  for 
increase  on  account  of  additional  disabilities,  namely,  "  disease 
of  eyes  and  disease  of  spine."  Pursuant  to  these  allegations  ad- 
ditional pension  for  "disease  of  back  (lumbago),"  at  $2  per 
month,  and  for  "  disease  of  eyes,"  at  $4,  $8,  and  $17,  respectively, 
per  month  was  allowed.  The  combined  rates,  however,  did  not 
exceed  $17  per  month. 

Fractional  rates  can  not  be  added  together  so  as  to  make  a 
grade  rate,  and  the  aggregate  degree  of  disability  shown  to  be 
due  to  all  pensioned  causes  was  not  equivalent  to  the  loss  of  a 
hand  or  foot  for  purposes  of  manual  labor;  consequently  the 
third-grade  rate  was  not  allowed. 

Although  the  term  "  disease  of  eyes  "  is  not  so  indefinite  as 
are  such  terms  as  "  disease  of  spine,"  "  disease  of  head,"  "  dis- 
ease of  back,"  etc.,  the  visual  organs  and  their  appendages  are, 
nevertheless,  subject  to  so  large  a  number  and  such  an  infinite 
variety  of  diseases,  accidents,  and  other  abnormal  conditions  that 
it  is  desirable  that  all  approvals  for  pension — both  legal  and 
medical,  especially  the  latter — hereafter  spread  on  the  brief  face 
in  each  and  every  case  wherein  such  questions  are  involved  shall 


428  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

indicate  as  clearly  as  possible  the  nature  of  the  disease,  lesion,  or 
condition  accepted  as  of  service  origin;  but  inasmuch  as  this 
suggestion  is  in  the  nature  of  a  new  departure  from  prevailing 
methods,  the  propriety  of  complying  therewith  is,  at  this  time, 
merely  suggested  for  the  careful  consideration  of  the  Bureau,  the 
action  of  which  in  other  respects  in  this  case,  especially  in  re- 
gard to  the  adequacy  of  the  existing  rate,  is  approved. 

24.  Interlocutory  Order. 

Practice — Appeal — Interlocvtory    order.     (George    P.    Kobertson, 
14  P.  D.,  364.) 

An  appeal  will  not  lie  from  an  interlocutory  order  or  ruling. 
(Cases  of  John  W.  Morris,  2  P.  D.,  73,  and  Frank  Bishop,  jr., 
8  P.  D.,  459.) 

25.  Reconsideration — Rule  13. 

Practice — Reconsideration — Rvle    13     (Henry    C.    Mechling,    14 
P.  D.,  68.) 

The  action  of  the  Bureau  in  the  case  having  been  affirmed  on 
appeal  and  a  motion  for  reconsideration  of  said  decision  over- 
ruled, this  second  motion  to  reconsider  is  overruled  under  Rule 
13,  Rules  of  Practice,  as  the  same  does  not  disclose  that  any  mate- 
rial feature  of  the  case  had  not  been  fully  considered  nor  that 
there  was  error  of  fact  or  in  the  application  of  the  law. 

26.  Special  Examination. 

Practice  —  Attorneys  —  Special    examinations.      (Ascha    Hughes, 
mother,  10  P.  D.,  390.) 

The  relations  between  attorney  and  client,  in  a  pension  claim, 
are  not  such  as  to  give  the  attorney  all  of  the  same  rights  that  he 
would  have  under  the  common  law. 

The  mission  of  and  the  procedure  under  a  special  examination 
is  such  as  to  preclude  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  presence  of  an 
attorney  to  protect  either  his  own  or  his  claimant's  rights.  The 
prevailing  practice  of  allowing  an  attorney  to  be  present  and  to 
take  part  in  a  special  examination,  if  so  requested  by  claimant, 
is  all  that  is  necessary  under  the  circumstances,  for  the  Govern- 
ment is  not  in  any  wise  a  defendant  in  such  proceedings. 
Practice — Special  examination — Division  of  pension.  (Hyatt  v. 
Hyatt,  14  P.  D.,  8.) 

Where,  after  a  special  examination  directed  by  this  Depart- 
ment, after  appeal,  a  claim  for  division  of  pension  under  the  act 
of  March  3,  1899,  has  been  decided  by  the  Department,  the  deci- 
sion will  be  deemed  final  to  the  extent  that,  in  the  absence  of 
fraud  or  mistake,  it  will  not  be  reopened  or  modified  without  the 
express  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  429 

The  Bureau  action,  in  declining  to  recommend  a  reopening  of 
this  case,  and  holding  that  there  was  no  reason  to  believe  that  the 
special  examination  was  partial  or  prejudicial  to  the  interest  of 
claimant,  and  that  further  action  by  the  Bureau  was  not  deemed 
necessary  or  desirable,  is  affirmed. 

27.  Jurisdiction — Res  Judicata. 

Reduction — Aid  and  attendance — Practice — Fraud — Jurisdiction — 
Res  judicata — Medical  referee — Record.  (William  Blaisdell, 
deceased,  13  P.  D.,  465.) 

1.  There  is  no  statute  inhibiting  one  administration  from  re- 
viewing the  action  of  a  past  administration,  and  the  Department 
may  not  make  any  such  inhibition. 

2.  The  Department  may,  however,  in  the  interests  of  good 
administration  and  on  grounds  of  public  policy,  properly  and 
lawfully  refuse  such  review  except  on  error  or  gross  injustice 
appearing  on  the  face  of  the  record  or  clearly  demonstrated  in  a 
motion  for  reconsideration. 

3.  Failure  by  the  Department  to  entertain  as  a  motion  for 
reconsideration  a  guardian's  letter  setting  forth  facts  sufficient 
under  the  rules  to  constitute  a  valid  motion  for  reconsideration 
of  a  decision  adverse  to  such  guardian's  ward  is  such  error  as  will 
be  corrected,  after  the  ward's  death,  on  motion  regularly  made  by 
one  entitled  to  claim  the  latter's  accrued  pension. 

4.  In  exercising  such  power  of  review  one  administration  may 
not  disturb  the  action  of  a  past  administration  so  as  to  aifect  pen- 
sion already  paid  thereunder,  unless  fraud  or  mistake  of  fact  be 
shown,  but  an  erroneous  judgment  on  the  evidence  may  be  cor- 
rected by  any  succeeding  administration  so  far  as  regards  future 
pension. 

5.  The  Commissioner  of  Pensions  has,  with  the  consent  and 
under  the  supervision  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  full  power 
at  any  time  to  increase  or  to  reduce  a  pension  according  to  right 
and  justice,  subject  only  to  certain  provisions  as  to  notice  and 
hearing,  and  it  is  his  duty  to  reduce  or  to  withdraw  pension  when 
it  is  shown  to  be  contrary  to  a  clear  and  unambiguous  law  as  to 
which  no  misconstruction  is  possible. 

().  The  opinion  of  the  medical  referee,  while  generally  accepted 
on  purely  medical  questions,  is  not  conclusive,  but  is  advisory 
only,  and  on  questions  of  mental  capacity  and  of  facts  lying 
within  the  range  of  common  observation  and  experience  his 
opinion  and  medical  testimony  generally  is  not  entitled  to  any 
greater  weight  because  of  the  fact  of  his  or  the  witness  being  a 
physician,  but  such  questions  should  be  decided  upon  all  the  evi- 
dence in  the  case. 


430  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

7.  The  question  of  title  to  the  first-grade  rate  is  one  of  mixed 
law  and  fact,  to  be  decided  from  all  the  laws  in  pari  materia  on 
the  one  hand  and  from  all  the  evidence  on  the  other. 

8.  Insanity  does  not  of  itself  necessarily  entitle  to  either  the 
first  grade  or  the  intermediate  rate,  but  it  must  be  shown  that  the 
disability  or  disabilities  established  as  originating  in  line  of  duty 
in  service  totally  incapacitate  the  soldier  for  manual  labor,  and 
also  necessitate  the  regular  or  the  frequent  and  periodical  per- 
sonal aid  and  attendance  of  another. 

9.  The  public  record  as  to  the  cause  of  death  is  not  conclusive, 
but  the  question  of  death  cause  is  one  of  fact  to  be  decided  upon 
all  the  evidence,  and  the  medical  referee's  conclusion  as  to  such 
cause  is  generally  followed  by  the  Department  when  based  upon 
all  the  evidence  and  upon  facts  appearing  therein  reasonably  and 
fairly  warranting  it. 

10.  The  evidence  herein  shows  that  the  allowance  of  pension 
at  the  first-grade  rate  in  January,  1891,  was  erroneous  and  illegal, 
as  it  included  disabilities  which  had  not  been  established  as  of 
service  origin,  and  as  neither  total  incapacity  for  manual  labor 
nor  regular  personal  aid  and  attendance  of  another  person,  with- 
in the  meaning  of  the  law  as  construed  by  the  Department, 
existed  by  reason  of  the  only  cause,  sciatic  rheumatism,  shown  to 
have  originated  in  line  of  duty  in  service,  and  that  the  rate  was 
properly  reduced  to  $10  per  month  from  July  4,  1893,  neither 
such  incapacity  for  labor  nor  such  need  of  aid  and  attendance 
having  existed  since  that  date  from  said  cause. 

11.  The  soldier's  mental  disease  or  infirmity  is  shown  to  have 
had  no  probable  or  possible  pathological  connection  with  said 
disease  on  account  of  which  he  was  properly  pensionable,  sciatic 
rheumatism,  nor  any  connection  otherwise  with  his  military 
service,  but  is  shown  to  have  been  probably  due  to  other  and  non- 
service  causes. 

12.  A  bare  preponderance  of  testimony  is  not  sufficient  to  es- 
tablish.  fraud,  but  there  must  be  such  clear  and  ample  prepon- 
derance as  to  satisfy  the  mind  and  conscience  of  the  fact  of  fraud. 

13.  It  is  error  to  omit,  on  special  examination  of  a  claim,  to 
cross-examine  procurable  witnesses  whose  affidavits  prima  facie 
establish  such  claim. 

28.  Legal  Points  to  be  Adjudicated. 

Practice — War  with  Spain — Evidence — Proof.     (Luther  J.  Smith, 
13  P.  D.,  344.) 

In  all  cases  under  the  general  law  arising  since  the  commence- 
ment of  the  war  with  Spain,  the  legal  points  involved  should  be 
first  passed  upon. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  431 

OPINION. 

(Certificate  319701,  Julianna  Dickey,  widow  of  James  Dickey,  late  pilot  on 
ram  Lioness,  Mississippi  ram  fleet.) 

Law  Division,  April  23^  1901^, 

Respectfully  referred  to  chief  of  Board  of  Review  for  his 
consideration  and  such  action  as  he  may  deem  proper. 

It  appears  that  in  this  case  the  only  service  rendered  by  James 
Dickey  was  as  a  civilian  pilot  on  the  ram  Lioness  of  EUet's  ram 
fleet,  from  April  29  to  September  3,  1862.  He  was  pensioned 
under  the  old  law  for  malarial  poisoning,  and  his  widow's  appli- 
cation under  said  law  was  rejected  on  the  ground  that  death 
cause,  carcinoma,  was  not  due  to  any  disability  established  to  be  of 
army  origin.  She  was  pensioned  under  the  provisions  of  the  act 
of  June  27,  1890,  on  June  7,  1892,  prior  to  the  date  of  the  deci- 
sion of  the  Department  in  re  Andrew  J.  Shannon  (7  P.  D.,  64) 
and  in  re  David  Oliver  (7  P.  D.,  597). 

It  appears  that  it  was  the  practice  of  the  Bureau  to  grant 
pensions  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  based  upon  service  in  the 
ram  fleet  up  to  or  about  November  24,  1893;  and  this  practice 
was  apparently  sustained  in  principle  by  the  decision  in  the 
Louis  Schaffer  case  (6  P.  D.,  137). 

No  cause  for  further  action  on  the  part  of  this  division  ap- 
pears to  exist. 

S.  A.  Cuddy, 
Chief  of  Law  Division. 

(Certificate  No.  304318,  Leander  Cjlirns,  U.   S.   Navy.     No.  319701,  widow  of 
James  Dickey,  pilot  on  U.  S.  ram  Monarch  and  Lioness,  U.  S.  Navy.) 

Office  of  First  Deputy  Commissioner, 

June  25,  190i. 
Mr.  Dalton,  Chief,  Board  of  Review: 

I  see  it  is  the  purpose  to  drop  the  names  of  these  claimants 
from  the  rolls.  The  claims  seem  to  have  been  allowed  in  accord- 
ance with  the  law  as  construed  by  the  Commissioner  of  Pen- 
sions at  the  dates  of  allowance,  and  I  see  no  reason  why  at  this 
time  the  present  Commissioner  should  attempt  to  undo  what  was 
done  by  a  former  Commissioner.  The  practice  of  revision  Avas 
stopped  long  ago,  and  pensions  should  remain  undisturbed  in 
cases  in  which  nothing  new  has  developed  since  the  date  of 
allowance. 

J.  L.  Davenport, 
First  Deputy  Commissioner. 


432  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

PREDISPOSING  CAUSE. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  6  (10  P.  D.,  90;  14  P.  D.,  300). 

PREEMPTION. 

See  Services  No.  24  (15  P.  D.,  198). 

PRESUMPTIONS. 

See  Accrued  Pension:  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  208)  ;  No.  8  (13  P.  D.,  181). 

See  Dependent  Parents  :  No,  5  (9  P.  D.,  287). 

See  Disloyalty:  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  136). 

See  Evidence:  Nos.  7,  9,  10,  13,  14,  16  (12  P.  D.,  264;  11  P.  D.,  102 
9  P.  D.,  418,  500 ;  10  P.  D.,  6,  51 ;  11  P.  D.,  197,  501 ;  12  P.  D.,  Ill 
13  P.  D.,  54 ;  15  P.  D.,  41,  345,  347,  500 ;  13  P.  D.,  437 ;  10  P.  D.,  448 
12  P.  D.,  155;  11  P.  D.,  344 ;  12  P.  D.,  155). 

See  Fee:  No.  15  (11  P.  D.,  215). 

See  Line  of  Duty:  No.  11  (11  P.  D.,  84,  516). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (b)  (15  P.  D.,  223)  ;  No.  2  (d)  (15  P.  D.,  103)  ; 
No.  2  (e)  (15  P.  D.,  253)  ;  No.  2  (k)  (15  P.  D.,  186)  ;  No.  2  (o)  (13 
P.  D.,  64)  ;  No.  2  (p)  (11  P.  D.,  339)  ;  No.  2  (r)  (14  P.  D.,  530)  ; 
No.  2  (t)  (15  P.  D.,  240)  ;  No.  2  (u)  (15  P.  D.,  236)  ;  No.  2  (w)  (13 
P.  D.,  59)  ;  No.  2  (z)  (15  P.  D.,  258)  ;  No.  2  (bb)  (11  P.  D.,  212; 
12  P.  D.,  306,  340;  15  P.  D.,  413)  ;  No.  2  (ff)  (11  P.  D.,  427)  ;  No. 
2  (gg)  (15  P.  D.,  495)  ;  No.  2  (11)  (15  P.  D.,  .399)  ;  No.  3  (a)  (9 
P.  D.,  31 ;  11  P.  D.,  320)  ;  No.  3  (b)  (12  P.  D.,  312)  ;  No.  3  (c)  (11 
P.  D.,  158;  12  P.  D.,  182)  ;  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  204)  ;  No.  12  (9  P.  D., 
243 ;  10  P.  D.,  162 ;  11  P.  D.,  43,  234 ;  12  P.  D.,  32,  278,  292,  348 ;  14 
P.  D.,  442)  ;  No.  13  (11  P.  D.,  66,  131;  14  P.  D.,  497)  ;  No.  15  (14 
P.  D.,  156). 

See  Vicious  Habits  :  Nos.  1,  2  (9  P.  D.,  252 ;  15  P.  D.,  427). 

See  Service:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  18). 

PRESUMPTION  OF  CAPACITY. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (b)  (15  P.  D.,  223). 

PRESUMPTION  AS  TO  MATERIAL  SERVICE. 

See  Fee:  No.  15  (11  P.  D.,  215). 

PRESUMPTION  OF  VICIOUS  HABITS. 

See  Evidence:  No.  16  (11  P.  D.,  344). 

PRESUMPTION  OF  ILLICIT  COHABITATION. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (t)  (15  P.  D.,  240). 

PRESUMPTION  OF  DEATH. 

See  Accrued  Pension:  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  208)  ;  No.  8  (13  P.  D.,  181). 
See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  5  (9  P.  D.,  287). 

See  Evidence:  No.  10  (9  P.  D.,  201,  418,  500;  10  P.  D.,  6,  51,  289;  11 
P.  D.,  197,  501 ;  12  P.  D.,  Ill ;  13  P.  D.,  54;  15  P.  D.,  41,  347,  500). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  433 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (d),  2  (e),  2  (o),  2  (z),  2  (bb)  (15  P.  D.,  103; 
15  P.  D.,  253 ;  13  P.  D.,  64 ;  15  P.  D.,  258 ;  11  P.  D.,  212 ;  12  P.  D., 
306,  340)  ;  No.  3  (b)  (12  P.  D.,  312)  ;  No.  12  (9  P.  D.,  243 ;  10  P.  D.! 
162;  11  P.  D.,  43,  234;  12  P.  D.,  32,  278,  292,  348;  14  P.  D.,  442)  ; 
No.  2  (gg)  (15  P.  D.,  495). 

PRESUMPTION  OF  DIVORCE. 

See  Divorce:  No.  2  (10  P.  D.  311,  348;  13  P.  D.,  68 ;  15  P.  D.,  174). 
See  Marriage:  No.  13  (11  P.  D.,  66,  131;  14  P.  D.,  497)  ;  No.  2  (1) 
(15  P.  D.,  229)  ;  No.  2  (11)  (15  P.  D.,  399). 

PRIOR  MARRIAGE. 

See  Marriage:  No.  4  (12  P.  D.,  505). 

PROBATE  COURT. 

See  Marriage:  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  272). 

PRIMA  FACIE  CASE. 

See  Attorneys:  No.  7  (11  P.  D.,  392). 
See  Fee:  No.  17  (11  P.  D.,  392). 

PRESUMPTION  OF  PRIOR  SERVICE. 

See  Evidence:  No.  13  (11  P.  D.,  437). 

PRIOR  SERVICE. 

See  Evidence:  No.  13  (11  P.  D.,  437). 
See  Service:  No.  25  (13  P.  D.,  288). 

PRESUMPTION  AS  TO  PRIOR  SOUNDNESS. 

See  Evidence:  No.  14  (10  P.  D.,  448;  12  P.  D.,  155;  15  P.  D.,  345). 

PRIOR  SOUNDNESS. 

References. 

See  Evidence:  No.  14  (10  P.  D.,  448;  12  P.  D.,  155;  15  P.  D.,  345). 
See  Origin:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  298). 

Index. 

1.  When  presumed. 

2.  Predisposition  to  disease  not  a  bar  to  pension. 

1.  When  Presumed. 

Prior  soundness — Heart  disease — Evidence.     (George  H.  Earle,  15 
p.  D.,  1.) 

The  rejection  of  appellant's  claim  for  pension  on  account  of 
disease  of  heart  on  the  ground  that  such  disease  is  shown,  by 
the  records  of  the  Navy  Department,  to  have  originated  prior  to 
his  enlistment  as  a  coal  passer  in  the  NaA^y,  is  untenable — not 
only  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  record  in  that  respect  was 
13070—06 28 


434  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

based  on  a  mere  theoretical  opinion  to  that  effect  and  not 
founded  upon  an  established  fact,  but  also  because  the  natural 
presumption  of  the  existence  of  physical  soundness  at  enlistment, 
as  a  prerequisite  to  his  acceptance  as  fit  to  perform  the  duties 
for  which  he  enlisted,  is  sustained  by  the  same  records,  which 
show  that  "  no  physical  defect "  was  "  noted  at  enlistment." 
To  hold  otherwise  would  be  permitting  a  theory  to  controvert  a 
fact.  Moreover,  the  presumption  of  prior  soundness  is  further 
sustained  by  the  fact  that  only  four  months  before  his  enlist- 
ment in  the  Navy  the  claimant  was  discharged  from  the  military 
service  of  the  United  States  as  physically  sound,  and  nothing  to 
the  contrary  was  shown  until  seventeen  months  subsequent  to 
such  enlistment.  Neither  would  the  rejection  of  said  claim  on 
the  ground  that  the  disease  of  heart  in  question  had  ceased  to 
exist  be  proper  in  the  light  of  the  facts  presented  in  the  case  in 
regard  thereto. 

2.  Predisposition  to  Disease  not  a  Bar  to  Pension. 

(No.  1221028,  Frank  A.  Atkins  (insane),  Company  F,  Eiglitli  Oliio  Volunteer 
Infantry,  war  with  Spain ;  Jos.  A.  Atkins,  guardian,  completing.  Docket  No. 
79490,  appeal.     Reversed  in  part,  affirmed  in  part.) 

UNPUBLISHED   GENERAL   LAW   CLAIM. 

Soldier  had  varicose  veins  at  enlistment;  his  present  disability 
therefrom  originated  not  in  service,  but  is  merely  a  development 
of  a  condition  existing  prior  to  enlistment.  At  the  most,  the  con- 
dition was  merely  aggravated  during  his  service;  but  mere  ag- 
gravation of  a  preexisting  cause  of  disability  is  not  pensionable. 

Soldier  had  malaria  four  years  before  enlistment,  from  which 
he  recovered.  He  again  contracted  the  disease  in  service.  If 
the  first  attack  is  in  any  way  a  factor,  it  served  merely  to  create 
a  predisposition  to  contract  the  disease.  Predisposition  to  dis- 
ease is  not  a  bar  to  pension.  His  present  disability,  then,  must 
be  attributed  to  the  service. 

PROVOST  MARSHALS. 

See  Line  of  Duty  :  No.  5  (10  P.  D.,  345). 

PRO  RATA  FEE. 

See  Fee:  No.  16  (11  P.  D.,  496). 


PROOF. 


See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  6  (12  P.  D.,  370)  ;  No.  12  (13  P.  D. 

120). 
See  Evidence:  No.  11  (11  P.  D.,  524). 
See  Legitimacy:  No.  5  (12  P.  D.,  lOU). 
See  Marriage:  No.  6  (13  P.  D.,  96)  ;  No.  13  (11  P.  D.,  131). 
See  Minors  :  No.  5  (12  P.  D.,  512). 


I 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  485 

PROOF  OF  DEATH. 

See  Marriage:  No.  6  (13  P.  D.,  96). 

PUTATIVE  MARRIAGE. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (p)   (13  P.  D.,  98;  15  P.  D.,  530). 

RANK. 

References. 

See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  7  (10  P.  D.,  299). 

See  Fee  :  No.  25  (10  P.  D.,  428). 

See  Special  Act:  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  424). 

Index. 

1.  Rating— Act  June  27,  1890. 

2.  Rate— Act  June  27,  1890— Construction. 

1.  Rating — Act  June  27,  1890. 

Rating— Act  June  27,  1890.     (Mary  Ann  Hurst,  mother,  9  P.  D., 
406.) 

Rank  in  the  service  is  not  to  be  considered  in  any  application 
under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

2.  Rate — Act  June  27,  1890 — Construction. 

Rank — Rate — Act  Jnne  27,  1890 — Construction.     (Mary  H.  Elli- 
ott, mother,  11  P.  D.,  34.) 

Claimant's  son  having  held  the  rank  of  major  at  the  time  he 
was  killed  in  battle,  November  27,  1868,  she  was  entitled  to  a 
pension  of  $25  per  month  under  her  dependent  mother's  applica- 
tion filed  January  16,  1891,  and  there  was  and  is  no  authority  of 
law  for  rating  her  pension  at  $12  per  month  under  section  4707, 
Revised  Statutes,  as  amended  by  the  first  section  of  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890. 

RATE  AND  RATING. 

References. 

See  Aid  and  Attendance:   Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4  (9  P.  D.,  307,  349,  423,  481; 

10  P.  D.,  172;  12  P.  D.,  70,  77,  215,  299;  11  P.  D.,  473,  503). 
See  Amputation  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  70;   11  P.  D.,  1 ;   14  P.  D.,  264). 
See  Certificate  of  Medical  Examination  :   No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  4). 

See  Commencement:  No.  1   (9  P.  D.,  102;  13  P.  D.,  352;  No.  G  (11 

P.  D.,  18). 
See  Construction  of  Statutes:   No  2  (10  P.  D.,  99). 
See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  7  (10  P.  D.,  299). 
See  Disability:  Nos.  2,  3,  6,  8,  10  (9  P.  D.,  68,  156;  10  P.  D.,  276; 

11  P.  D.,  505;     12  P.  D.,  319;  14  P.  D.,  182,  508). 
See  Fee:    No.  25  (10  P.  D.,  428). 

See  Increase:    Nos.  3,  5  (12  P.  D.,  87,  92;    13  P.  D..  290,  455). 

See  Pathological  Sequence:    Nos.   13,  18,  20    (13  P.  D.,  192;    14 

P.  D.,  89;    11  P.  D.,  .317). 
See  Payment  of  Pension  :   No.  2  (10  P.  D.,  281). 


436  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Rate  and  rating — Continued. 

References — Continued. 

See  Practice:    Xos.  11,  23  (10  P.  D.,  12;    14  P.  D.,  162). 

See  Rank  :  Nos.  1,  2  (9  P.  D.,  406;  11  P.  D.,  34). 

See  Reduction:  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  344;  12  P.  D.,  244). 

See  Reimbursement:    No.  2  (13  P.  D.,  201). 

See  Rebating:    No.  5  (9  P.  D.,  66;    11  P.  D.,  299). 

See  Restoration:    No.  3  (9  P.  D.,  430). 

Index. 

1.  Act  March  19,  1886. 

2.  Act  June  27,  1890. 

3.  Adequacy  of  rate. 

4.  Combination  of  rates. 

5.  Rating  for  deafness. 
0.  Compounding  rates. 

7.  First  grade. 

8.  Practice. 

9.  Act  of  August  4,  1886. 

10.  Specific  disability— Act  March  2,  1903. 

11.  Grade  rates-Act  March  3,  1883. 

12.  Notice— Act  December  21,  1893. 

1.  Act  March  19,  1886. 

Rate — A(it  March  19^  1886.     (Laura  A.  Young,  widow,  9  P.  D., 
403.) 

1.  As  claimant  was  married  to  soldier  after  his  discharge  from 
the  service,  and  after  the  passage  of  the  act  of  March  19,  1886, 
which  increased  the  pensions  of  widows  and  dependent  relatives 
of  deceased  soldiers  from  $8  to  $12  per  month,  her  pension  was 
properly  allowed  at  the  rate  of  $8  per  month  only,  as  said  act 
contained  a  proviso  limiting  its  application  to  widows  who  were 
married  to  soldiers  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act,  or  during  the 
service  of  such  soldier. 

2.  Appellant  having  filed  her  application  under  the  misap- 
prehension that  her  claim  under  the  general  law  had  been  re- 

1  jected,  and  that  she  was  pensioned  under  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  instead,  said  appeal  is  dismissed. 

2.  Act  June  27,  1890. 

Rates— Act  June  27,  1890.     (David  Wilson,  9  P.  t).,  404.) 

1.  The  pension  law,  with  the  exception  of  the  act  of  February 
28,  1877,  granting  a  pension  for  the  loss  of  an  arm  and  a  leg,  has 
never  permitted  the  allowance  of  a  pension  made  up  of  the  sum 
of  the  rates  allowable  for  disability  from  two  or  more  causes 
considered  separately.  The  rate  must  be  based  upon  the  com- 
bined effect  of  all  the  causes". 

2.  The  rates  of  pension  under  the  general  law  are  much  higher 
than  those  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  the  highest  rate  under 
the  latter  act  being  $12  per  month,  which  is  allowable  for  about 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  437 

the  same  degree  of  disability  for  which  the  general  pension  law 
provides  the  rate  of  $30  per  month. 

Rate — Act  June  27^.1890  —  Disability  —  Reduction.     (Joseph  A. 
Dudgeon,  9  P.  D.,  413.) 

Disabilities  which  are  pensionable  under  the  second  section  of 
the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  must  cause  incapacity  for  performance 
of  manual  labor  in  such  degree  as  to  produce  inability  to  earn  a 
support,  and  the  rate  must,  within  the  limits  fixed,  be  propor- 
tioned to  the  degree  of  inability  to  earn  a  support. 

The  right  to  increase  and  the  right  to  reduce  rest  upon  the 
same  basis;  the  only  question  to  be  considered  is  whether  the 
increase  or  reduction  was  warranted  by  the  law  and  the  facts. 

Rate— Act  June  27,  1890.     (James  Caldwell,  9  P.  D.  486.) 

The  maximum  rate  of  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
corresponds  with  total  disability  and  the  minimum  and  inter- 
vening rates  correspond,  proportionately,  with  all  partial  degrees 
of  inability  to  earn  a  support  by  manual  labor. 

Rate— Act  June  27, 1890— Disability.     (Evlin  Earl,  10  P.  D.,  176.) 
The  evidence  on  file  at  the  time  the  pension  was  reduced  show- 
ing that  the  pensioner  could  earn  a  partial  support  by  manual 
labor,  the  reduction  from  $12  to  $8  per  month  is  held  not  to  have 
been  erroneous. 

Rating — Act  June  27,  1890 — Disabilities.     (Reuben  F.  Scott,  10 
P.  D.,  256.) 

It  was  not  intended  by  the  second  section  of  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  to  grant  pension  thereunder  for  a  degree  of  disability  that 
would  not  materially  impair  a  claimant's  ability  to  earn  a  sup- 
port by  manual  labor. 

Rating — Act  June  27,  1890 — Disability.     (Charles  Norbury  alias 
William  Walker,  10  P.  D.,  261.) 

1.  Pensions  under  section  2  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  can  not 
be  rated  as  under  sections  4692  and  4693,  Revised  Statutes,  or 
the  act  of  August  27,  1888. 

2.  To  be  ratable  under  the  second  section  of  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  a  disability  must  not  only  be  of  a  permanent  character,  not 
the  result  of  claimant's  vicious  habits,  but  must  incapacitate  him 
for  the  performance  of  manual  labor,  and  that  in  a  degree  ren- 
dering him  unable  to  earn  a  support. 

3.  Total  deafness  of  one  ear  only  is  not  a  pensionable  condition 
under  said  act. 

Rates  and  rating,  act  June  27, 1890 — Practice.     (Isaac  B.  Childers, 
10  P.  D.,  397.) 

Appellant  filed  his  first  claim  for  pension  under  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  on  September  24,  1891.     Said  claim  was  rejected 


488  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

October  30,  1894,  on  the  ground  of  no  disability  shown  under  the 
act.  Certificate  of  medical  examination  made  under  the  claim 
■?howed  existence  of  an  inguinal  hernia,  incomplete.  A  second 
claim  was  filed  June  23,  1897,  under  said  act,  together  w^ith  a 
claim  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  March  G,  1896.  Pension 
was  alloAA^ed  for  an  inguinal  hernia  from  date  of  filing  last  decla- 
ration, and  former  rejection  was  adhered  to  by  the  Bureau  on  the 
ground  that  a  schedule  of  rates  prepared  for  general-law  j^en- 
sioners  fixed  a  rate  of  only  $4  per  month  for  a  like  condition 
during  a  period  prior  to  December  4,  1891. 

Held:  That  in  fixing  rates  of  pension  in  claims  under  the  act 
of  June  27,  1890,  only  the  degree  of  inabilit}^  for  earning  a  sup- 
port by  manual  labor  should  be  considered,  other  laws  and 
schedules  not  being  allowed  to  influence  the  action. 
Rates  and  rating^  act  June  27^  1890 — Practice.  (Lucius  S.  Hollis, 
10  P.  D.,  414.) 

Any  practice  which  allows  a  rating  under  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  without  making  the  degree  of  inability  to  earn  a  support 
by  manual  labor  the  basis  of  judgment,  is  unwarranted  by  law. 
(Isaac  B.  Childers,  358  L.  B.,  396.) 

A  pensionable  condition  can  not  be  found  because  designated 
by  a  name  of  a  disease  or  disability,  unless  such  name  or  designa- 
tion carries  with  it  the  conclusive  fact  that  it  embraces  conditions 
which  are  of  necessity  of  such  a  character  as  to  pensionably  dis- 
able one. 

Neither  the  term  "  complete  inguinal  hernia  "  nor  "  incomplete 
inguinal  hernia,"  joer  se,  conveys  any  specific  information  by 
reason  of  which  a  rating  could  be  allowed. 

3.  Adequacy  of  Rate. 

Rate—Disahility.     (John  W.  Fellows,  9  P.  D.,  370.) 

Seventeen  dollars  per  month  is  deemed  an  adequate  pension  for 
disability  due  to  rheumatism  and  resulting  disease  of  heart,  evi- 
denced by  atrophy  of  muscles  of  left  shoulder,  with  motion  much 
impaired  and  marked  crepitation  in  both  shoulder  joints  and  both 
knee  joints,  resulting  in  hypertrophy  of  heart,  heart's  beat  being 
120  per  minute. 

Practice — Reduction   rate — Act   June    27^    1890.     (Mary    M.    De 
Gough,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  336.) 

The  rate  of  $8  per  month,  to  which  this  soldier  was  reduced, 
appears  to  be  fairly  commensurate  to  the  degree  of  incapacity 
for  earning  a  support  shown  to  have  existed. 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  439 

4.  Combination  of  Rates. 

Rating — Practice — Combining  ratings.     (Mark  Davis,  10  P.  D., 
185.) 

Pensioner  was  receiving  a  rating  of  seventeen-eighteenths  for 
neuralgia  and  slight  deafness  of  both  ears,  result  of  catarrh, 
said  rating  being  made  up  of  two-eighteenths  for  the  first- 
named  disability  and  fifteen-thirtieths  (the  schedule  rate  at 
time  of  allowance)  for  the  deafness  in  that  degree.  After- 
wards, when  rating  of  four-eighteenths  was  allowed  for  addi- 
tional disability  from  chronic  diarrhea  and  piles,  the  total  rating 
was  continued  at  seventeen-eighteenths,  because  the  ratings  could 
not  be  combined  to  make  twenty-one-eighteenths,  a  rate  un- 
known to  the  law.  Then  again,  the  schedule  rate  for  slight  deaf- 
ness of  both  ears  has  been  reduced  to  six- thirtieths.  This  was 
recommended  in  the  last  certificate  of  examination,  together 
with  six-eighteenths  for  piles  and  disease  of  rectum,  result  of 
diarrhea,  and  six-eighteenths  for  pains  in  stomach,  chest,  and 
head,  result  of  neuralgia.  Thus,  the.  combined  rates  making 
eighteen-eighteenths,  kept  the  total  pension  at  the  former  rate  of 
seventeen-eighteenths  per  month. 

The  ratings  named  could  not  be  combined  to  make  the  third- 
grade  rate,  or  $24  per  month,  even  if  they  would  amount  to  so 
much,  and  as  they  do  not  all  together,  and  considered  as  a  whole, 
produce  a  degree  of  incapacity  to  perform  manual  labor  equiv- 
alent to  the  loss  of  a  hand  or  foot,  pensioner  is  not  entitled  to 
said  third-grade  rate. 
Rate — Act  of  March  ^,  1895 — Combined  rates — Practice.  (George 
E.  Searles,  15  P.  D.,  550.) 

The  rate  fixed  by  the  act  of  March  2, 1895,  is  a  statutory  allow- 
ance and  not  a  disability  rating.  Any  rate  allowed  for  addi- 
tional disabilities  can  not  be  added  to  the  statutory  rate,  the  in- 
tent of  the  statute  being  to  fix  the  minimum  rate  which  can  be 
given  for  any  single  disability  or  for  several  combined  dis- 
abilities. 

5.  Rating  for  Deafness. 

Rate  of  pension — Deafness — Practice.     (Hilkiah  P.  Nichols,  de- 
ceased, 9  P.  D.,  326.) 

The  rating  of  pension  on  account  of  total  deafness  of  one  ear 
was,  in  accordance  with  established  practice,  during  the  period 
covered  in  this  case  (from  1865  to  1870)  $1  per  month. 
Deafness — Rate — Increase — Act  of  January  15^  1903.     (Michael 
W.  Strieker,  15  P.  D.,  207.) 

The  claimant  is  not  totally  deaf,  and  the  present  rate,  $27  per 
month,  is  the  highest  rate  allowable  for  partial  deafness. 


440  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Within  the  meaning  of  the  hiw  total  deafness  consists  in  the 
inability  to  hear  the  loudest  conversation.  The  rates  for  total 
deafness  can  be  allowed  only  when  the  sense  of  hearing  is  wholly 
destroyed  or  when  it  is  lacking  in  such  a  degree  that  the  loudest 
conversation  can  not  be  distinguished  in  either  ear. 

The  other  affections  for  which  the  claimant  is  pensioned  are 
neither  alleged  nor  shown  to  be  material  factors  in  the  claim 
for  increase  above  the  present  rating. 

6.  Compounding  Rates. 

Rating — Disability — Compoundhig  rates.     (George  A.   South,  10 
P.  D.,  21.) 

Unless  specifically  2:)rovided  for,  there  is  no  provision  of  law 
by  which  disabilities  can  be  considered  separately  and  com- 
pounded so  as  to  allow  for  all  the  pension  which  each,  consid- 
ered separately,  would  aggregate.  It  is  the  combined  effect  of 
all  that  must  be  considered ;  and  in  this  case  the  combined  effect 
of  all  the  disabling  causes  accepted  as  due  to  the  service  not  ren- 
dering claimant's  incapacity  to  perform  manual  labor  equivalent 
to  the  loss  of  a  hand  or  a  foot,  he  is  not  entitled  to  a  higher  rate 
of  pension  than  he  now  enjoys  ($17  per  month). 
Rate — Compounding  rates — Grade  rates.  (Niram  W.  Mallory,  11 
P.  D.,  165.) 

The  claimant  was  pensioned  at  $17^  per  month  for  disease  of 
heart. 

Subsequently  a  reissue  was  made  to  include  deafness,  but  no 
increase  of  rate  was  allowed. 

The  next  higher  rate  to  that  which  the  claimant  was  receiving 
is  third  grade,  $24  per  month. 

There  is  no  authority  of  law  under  which  specific  rates  and 
general  rates  can  be  compounded  to  make  a  grade  rating. 

7.  First  Grade. 

Rate — First  grade — Commencement — Avt  March  4,  1890.     (James 
Bennett,  10  P.  D.,  443.) 

Unless  a  pensioner's  name  was  borne  upon  the  rolls  at  first- 
grade  rate  proper — $50  per  month — prior  to  the  passage  of  the 
act  of  March  4,  1890,  which  act  increased  the  said  rate  to  $72 
per  month,  or  the  certificate  of  a  medical  examination  made  prior 
to  the  passage  of  the  said  act  showed  the  existence  of  such  a 
degree  of  disability  as  to  Avarrant  the  allowance  of  the  said 
first-grade  rate,  the  terms  of  the  act  itself  prohibit  the  alloAvance 
of  the  rate  prescribed  therein  from  any  period  prior  to  the  date 
of  the  certificate  of  an  examining  surgeon  or  board  of  examining 
surgeons  showing  such  degree  of  disability. 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  441 

8.  Practice. 

Rates — Practice.     (Nixon  Rees,  9  P.  D.,  435.) 

Where  the  basis  of  a  claim  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  is 
the  loss  of  sight  of  one  eye,  which  disabling  cause  is  shown  to 
have  existed  at  the  date  of  filing  the  declaration,  and  the  claim 
was  rejected  under  the  prevailing  practice  on  the  ground  that 
such  condition  did  not  constitute  a  ratable  disability  under  said 
act,  the  subsequent  adoption  of  the  rule  which  allows  a  rate  for 
such  disability  operates  to  vacate  the  former  adverse  action  and 
to  allow  the  claim. 

Rate — Increase — Deafness — Practice.      (George  Geary,   12  P.  D., 
294.) 

1.  Ratings  for  minor  disabilities  can  not  be  added  together  in 
order  to  make  a  grade  rating. 

2.  Claimant  being  pensioned  at  $22  per  month  for  severe  deaf- 
ness of  both  ears,  the  degree  of  deafness  existing  at  the  last 
medical  examination  is  not  entitled  to  have  said  rate  increased 
until  a  claim  for  increase  shall  have  been  filed  and  a  medical 
examination  had  showing  an  increased  degree  of  disability  to 
exist. 

Rate^   act  June  27.^   1890 — Increase — Practice — Election.     (Oscar 
Caldwell,  12  P.  D.,  331.) 

1.  The  claimant  is  receiving  $10  per  month  under  the  general 
law,  and  he  was  allowed  the  same  amount  under  the  act  of  June 
27,  1890.  He  has  taken  no  action  in  relation  to  the  notification 
as  to  his  right  to  elect  under  which  law  he  prefers  to  receive 
pension,  but  the  attorney  has  appealed  from  the  action  and 
allowance  under  said  act.  It  is  held  that  the  claimant  was  shown 
by  the  medical  examination  to  be  entitled  to  the  maximum  rating, 
and  it  is  directed  that  this  rating  be  allowed.        , 

2.  Whenever  it  is  shown  that  a  claimant's  disability  has  been 
materially  increased  after  his  official  exajnination,  yet  before 
the  adjudication  of  his  claim,  another  medical  examination 
shall  be  ordered  before  the  claim  is  rejected  or  adversely  adjudi- 
cated, unless  such  action  is  based  upon  legal  grounds,  and  it  is 
immaterial  whether  the  claim  is  for  original  pension  or  for 
increase  of  pension  under  either  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  or  the 
general  law,  provided,  of  course,  the  disability  under  the  general 
law  is  shown  to  be  due  to  the  pensioned  cause  or  causes,  or  to  a 
cause  or  causes  which  have  been  legally  accepted. 

Rate — Aid  and  attendance — Eindence.    (William  B.  Monson,   15 
P.  D.,  262.) 

The  claimant  being  pensioned  at  $30  per  month  for  rheuma- 
tism and  resulting  disease  of  heart  and  in  a  helpless  condition 


442  iPEi^rsioN  and  bounty-land  claims. 

so  as  to  require  regular  and  constant  aid  and  attendance,  and 
it  being  impossible  to  determine  to  what  extent  his  helplessness 
is  due  to  the  above-named  diseases  and  to  what  extent  to  old 
age  (79  3^ears),  the  recommendation  of  the  examining  surgeon 
that  he  be  given  $50  per  month  is  concurred  in. 

9.  Act  of  August  4,  1886. 

Rate — Act  of  August  4,  1886 — Total  disability  in  arm — Evidence. 
(Samuel  D.  Frank,  13  P.  D.,  362.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  the  gunshot  wound  of  soldier's  arm 
renders  it  totally  disabled  for  all  practical  use  and  convenience, 
and  entitles  him  to  the  rate  of  $36  under  the  act  of  August  4, 
1886. 

10.  Specific  Disability— Act  March  2,  1903. 

Rates — Specific  disability — Act  3/ arch  2,  1903 — Total  disability  in 
both  feet.     (Wilson  S.  Barney,  14  P.  D.,  524.) 

Those  persons  who  are  totally  disabled  in  both  feet  are  not 
included  in  any  class  of  beneficiaries  mentioned  in  the  act  of 
March  2,  1903,  and  are  not  entitled  thereunder  to  a  pension  of 
$100  per  month. 

11.  Grade  Rates— Act  March  3,  1883. 

Rating — Grade  rates ^  act  March  3,  1883 — Instructions.     (George 
W.  Baker,  9  P.  D.,  125.) 

1.  The  act  of  March  3,  1883,  increased  the  amount  of  pension 
for  third-grade  rating  from  $18  to  $24  per  month,  and  since 
that  date  there  has  been  no  $18  rate,  and  any  allow^ance  of  $18 
as  a  third -grade  rating  or  otherwise  is  erroneous. 

2.  The  basis  of  rating  above  $17  per  month  (aside  from  total 
of  rank)  is  that  the  disability  shall  produce  inability  to  perform 
manual  labor  equivalent  to  the  loss  of  a  hand  or  a  foot. 

12.  Notice,  Act  December  21,  1893. 

Notice,  act  December  21,  1893— Rates.     (Alva  H.  Hall,  9  P.  D., 
165.) 

1.  Where  the  question  involved  on  appeal  is  whether  claim- 
ant had  due  notice  of  the  proposed  action,  as  required  by  section 
3  of  the  act  of  June  21,  1879,  or  the  act  of  December  21,  1893,  the 
report  from  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  in  response  to  the 
appeal  should  fully  and  clearly  state  whether  notice  was  served 
on  the  claimant,  and  if  so,  the  form  of  the  notice  or  its  substance, 
and  the  date  and  manner  of  service  should  be  stated. 

2.  The  notice  specified  in  the  act  of  June  21,  1879,  and  the 
thirty  days'  notice  specified  in  the  act  of  December  21,  1893,  are 
essential  prerequisites  without  which  the  reduction  or  suspen- 
sion of  a  pension  is  not  authorized.     Due  statutory  notice  is  nee- 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  44S 

essary  to  confer  jurisdiction  to  reduce  or  suspend  pensions  once 
issued. 

3.  Where  the  record  shows  that  the  statutory  notice  was  duly 
issued  and  mailed  to  claimant's  address  and  is  not  returned  to 
your  Bureau,  the  presumption  is  that  the  notice  was  duly 
received  by  claimant,  and  this  presumption  is  not  outweighed 
by  the  affidavit  of  claimant  first  made  in  his  appeal,  but  in  such 
a  case  the  Department  will,  on  its  own  motion,  examine  into  the 
merits  of  the  claim  to  ascertain  if  any  injustice  has  been  done 
claimant  in  the  action  complained  of. 

4.  The  evidence  in  this  case  shows  that  claimant  was  im- 
properly pensioned  at  the  rate  of  $12  per  month  under  the  act 
of  June  27,  1890,  and  that  his  disability  did  not  entitle  him  to  a 
rate  in  excess  of  the  minimum  rate  under  said  act. 

5.  Combination  of  ratings  to  establish  a  pensionable  degree  of 
disability  is  not  authorized  under  the. act  of  June  27,  1890. 

READJTJDICATION. 

See  Practice:  No.  5  (9  P.  D.,  04). 

KECOGNITION. 

See  Attorneys:  Nos.  18,  19,  20  (10  P.  D.,  236,  403;  11  P.  D.,  422;  14 

P.  D.,  269;  15  P.  D..  317,  359). 
See  Fee:  No.  23  (14  P.  D.,  276). 

RECONSIDERATION. 

See  Fee:  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  39). 

See  Practice:  No.  25  (14  P.  D.,  68). 

See  Res  .Judicata  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  218). 

RECORD  OF  WAR  DEPARTMENT. 

See  Evidence:  No.  10  (15  P.  D.,  500). 

See  Line  of  Duty:  (2  unpublished  decisions.) 


RECORD. 


See  Attorneys  :  No.  6  (9  P.  D.,  471 ;  15  P.  D.,  163). 

See  Desertion  :  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  55)  ;  No.  4  (g)  (15  P.  D.,  8). 

See  Disloyalty:  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  327). 

See  Divorce:  Nos.  1,  3,  5,  10  (11  P.  D.,  226;  14  P.  D.,  5.35;  15  P.  D., 

278,  .389). 
See  Evidence  :  Nos.  7,  8,  10,  15  (10  P.  D.,  319 ;  12  P.  D.,  264 ;  13  P.  D., 

84,  450 ;  10  P.  D.,  80,  196 ;  11  P.  D.,  483 ;  15  P.  D.,  i^OO). 
See  Jurisdiction  :  Nos.  3,  4  (9  P.  D.,  273;  13  P.  D.,  465). 
See  Marriage:  No.  4  (12  P.  D.,  434). 
See  Practice:  No.  27  (13  P.  D.,  465). 
See  Service:  Nos.  2,  3,  20,  22,  25,  28  (9  P.  D.,  87;  15  P.  D.,  44,  50, 

51 ;  14  P.  D.,  249 ;  13  P.  D.,  230,  237,  288 ;  14  P.  D.,  388). 


444  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

RECRUIT. 

See  Service:  Nos.  18,  20  (11  P.  D.,  390;  13  P.  D.,  41). 

REJECTED  RECRUIT. 

^  See  Service:  No.  18  (11  P.  D.,  390). 

REDUCTION. 

References. 

See  Commencement:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  102). 

See  Jurisdiction:  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  465). 

See  Notice:  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  21). 

See  Practice:  No.  27  (13  P.  D.,  465). 

See  Rate  and  Rating:  Nos.  2,  3  (9  P.  D.,  413;  11  P.  D.,  336). 

Index. 

1.  Practice. 

2.  Rate. 

1.  Practice. 

Reduction — Notice — Practice.     (John  S.  Hubley,  9  P.  D.,  48.) 

An  unsworn  statement  by  a  claimant  that  he  never  received 
notice  to  appear  before  a  board  of  surgeons  in  a  reduction  case  is 
not  sufficient  to  warrant  a  reversal  of  the  action  of  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Pensions  reducing  the  rate  of  his  pension;  but  good 
practice  demands  that  a  record  of  such  notices  be  kept  in  the 
future,  and  when  a  pensioner  claims  that  he  was  not  notified  he 
should  be  advised  at  once  to  file  a  sworn  statement  of  the  fact,  and 
corroborative  proof,  when  the  issue  thus  raised  will  be  passed 
upon. 

Reduction— Notice.     (William  Hulse,  9  P.  D.,  121.) 

Pensioner's  rating  having  been  reduced  from  $12  to  $8  per 
month  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  after  due  notice  in  accord- 
ance with  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  December  21,  1893,  he 
appealed,  and  such  action  was  set  aside  for  the  purpose  of  ac- 
cording him  another  medical  examination,  it  having  been  three 
years  since  his  last  examination.  Such  examination  having  been 
made,  and  it  appearing  therefrom  that  such  reduction  was  justly 
and  properly  made,  pensioner  is  not  entitled  to  a  new  notice  to 
reduce  nor  additional  payment  at  a  higher  rate  for  the  period 
from  date  of  original  reduction  and  the  date  of  the  action  had  on 
the  last  medical  examination. 

2.  Rate. 

Reduction — Rerating.     (Gottlieb  Spitzer,  alias  Gottfried  Brunner, 
9  P.  D.,  83.) 

Where  the  allowance  of  a  certain  rate  of  pension  was  directed 
by  a  decision  of  the  Department,  and  subsequently  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Pensions  ordered  a  medical  examination  of  the  pen- 


r 
I 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  445 

sioner  by  a  specialist  and  upon  the  report  of  such  examination 
proceeded  to  reduce  the  rate  of  pension,  it  is 

Held:  That  such  action  was  not  ultra  vires,  but  was  within 
the  scope  of  the  authority  given  him  by  the  proviso  to  section  3, 
act  of  June  21,  1879. 

The  rate  allowed  under  departmental  decision  of  June  13, 1894, 
not  being  manifestly  erroneous,  but  the  question  as  to  its  correct- 
ness being,  one  of  judgment  merely,  it  will  not  be  disturbed. 
(Citing  decision  of  Secretary  Teller  in  case  of  James  S.  Coleman, 
Digest  of  1885,  p.  422.) 
Reduction— Rate— Act  June  '^7,  1890.  (Thomas  Mallon,  9  P.  D., 
344.) 

Soldier  was  pensioned  at  $12  per  month  in  August,  1890,  which 
rating  was  reduced  to  $6  per  month  in  March,  1895.  The  con- 
tention is  that  his  original  rating  was  fixed  in  harmony  with  reg- 
ulations which  obtained  at  that  time,  and  can  not  legally  be 
affected  by  regulations  formulated  subsequent  thereto. 

Held:  It  is  the  statute,  not  the  regulations,  which  determines 
his  rights. 
Reduction — Rate — Insanity — Aid  and   attendance,     (Lovell   Bul- 
lock, 12  P.  D.,  244.) 

The  guardian  of  the  soldier,  who  was  formerly  pensioned  at  the 
rate  of  $72  per  month  for  insanity,  has  appealed  from  the  reduc- 
tion of  the  rate  in  the  case  to  $50  per  month  for  such  cause  of  dis- 
ability. 

The  evidence  adduced  in  the  case  and  the  findings  of  a  board 
of  surgeons  at  a  recent  test  medical  examination  to  which  the 
pensioner  was  subjected,  show  conclusively  that  he  neither  has 
nor  requires  the  regular  personal  aid  and  attendance  of  another 
person. 

Held:  (1)  That  inasmuch  as  there  is  no  provision  of  law,  as  is 
the  case  in  total  blindness  and  in  other  specific  permanent  causes 
of  disability,  which  prescribes  a  fixed  rate  for  insanity  per  se,  no 
matter  what  the  degree  thereof  may  be,  neither  the  $50  rate  nor 
the  $72  rate  should  be  allowed  for  such  cause  of  disability  unless 
the  degree  of  disability  due  thereto  is  shown  to  be  such  as  to 
wholly  disqualify  the  claimant  or  pensioner  for  manual  labor, 
and  also  necessitate  either  the  frequent  and  periodical  or  the  reg- 
ular personal  aid  and  attendance  of  another  person.  (George 
Welch,  3  P.  D.,  121;  James  Caton,  6  P.  D.,  159;  Eppenetus  Mc- 
intosh, 10  P.  D.,  172.) 

2.  Th'at  the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  a  pensioner  requires 
the  personal  aid  and  attendance  of  another  person  is  not  wholly 
a  medical  one.  (Edmund  O.  Beers,  7  P.  D.,  113;  John  J.  Hill, 
7  P.  D.,  142.) 


446  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

REFUNDMENT. 

See  Fee:  Nos.  7,  15  (9  P.  D.,  377;  12  P.  D.,  109,  441;  11  P.  D.,  215). 

REFORMATION. 

See  Adulterous  Cohabitation:  No.  9  (15  P.  D.,  96). 

REISSUE. 

See  Attorneys:  No.  11  (12  P.  D.,  221). 
See  Helpless  Minor:  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  478). 

REIMBURSEMENT. 
References. 

See  Accrued  Pension  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  276;  No.  6  (12  P.  D.,  405). 

See  Decree  of  Nullity  :  No.  7  (15  P.  D.,  286). 

See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  15  (14  P.  D.,  367). 

See  Evidence:  No.  14  (10  P.  D.,  448). 

See  Fraud  and  Mistake:  Nos.  1,  2,  3  (9  P.  D.,  149,  455;  11  P.  D., 

200,  308;  12  P.  D.,  116;  14  P.  D.,  57). 
See  Navy  Pension  :  No.  2  (14  P.  D.,  224). 

Index. 

1.  Where  two  pensions  were  drawn  for  same  time. 

2.  Wliere  claimant  knew  allegations  were  fraudulent. 

3.  Act  of  March  2,  1895. 

4.  Fraud  and  mistake. 

1.  Where  Two  Pensions  Were  Drawn  for  Same  Time. 

Reimbursement — Fraud  and  mistake — Section  Jf715^  Revised  Stat- 
utes.    (Samuel  B.  Weeks,  10  P.  D.,  84.) 

Pensioner  having  drawn  two  pensions  for  the  same  period  of 
time,  in  contravention  of  the  provisions  of  said  section,  and  the 
Bureau  having  taken  steps  to  secure  reimbursement  of  the 
amount  illegally  paid  by  withholding  all  pension  until  the  over- 
payments are  recovered,  it  is  held  that  such  action  was  proper, 
that  it  is  a  duty  imposed  by  the  law,  and  that  the  Department  has 
no  power  to  afford  the  pensioner  relief  by  revoking  the  action  or 
annulling  the  requirement  of  the  statute. 

2.  Where  Claimant  Knew  Allegations  Were  Fraudulent. 

Reimbursement — Rate — Act  of  March  19,  1886 — Fraud  and  mis- 
take— Divorce  and  remarriage.  (Mary  Brooks,  widow,  13  P. 
D.,  201.) 

Mary  Brooks  married  the  soldier  on  August  10,  18()5;  was 
divorced  from  him  in  1887;  remarried  him  on  September  22, 
1889;  and  he  died  on  December  23,  1889.  On  June  13,  1890,  she 
was  allowed  a  pension  under  the  general  law  as  the  soldier's 
widow,  upon  proof  of  her  first  marriage  to  him  in  1865,  at  the 
rate  of  $12  per  month  from  the  date  of  the  soldier's  death,  the 
fact  of  her  divorce  and  remai.'iage  not  being  disclosed. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  447 

The  act  of  March  19,  1886,  increasing  the  pensions  of  widows 
from  $8  to  $12  per  month,  applied  only  to  such  widows  as  had 
been  married  prior  to  its  passage  or  prior  to  or  during  the  serv- 
ice of  the  soldier. 

Held:  That  the  concealment  of  the  fact  of  divorce  and  remar- 
riage operated  as  a  fraud  in  law,  and  the  reissue  of  the  widow's 
certificate  at  the  rate  of  $8  per  month,  and  the  withholding  pay- 
ment of  the  same  for  reimbursement  to  cover  erroneous  payments, 
was  proper. 

3.  Act  of  March  2,  1895. 

Reimhursement  —  Act    of    March    2^    1895  —  Practice.     (Charles 
Staples,  Alice  Haynes,  completing,  12  P.  D.,  289.) 

The  applicant,  Alice  Haynes,  who  has  been  allowed  reimburse- 
ment for  nursing  and  attendance  upon  the  soldier's  widow, 
is  not  entitled  to  complete  the  pending  claim  of  the  soldier  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  further  reimbursement.  Title  in  the 
accrued  invalid  pension,  if  any,  rested  solely  in  the  widow,  and 
never  having  been  allowed  it  can  not  be  said  to  exist,  and  appli- 
cant can  not  assert  any  legal  right  in  it. 

4.  Fraud  and  Mistake. 

Reimhursement — Fraud    and    mistake — Evidence.     (Adelbert.  L. 
Orr,  12  P.  D.,  394.) 

The  evidence  fails  to  show  that  claimant  had  rheumatism  prior 
to  his  entry  in  the  service,  or  that  he  contracted  said  disease 
during  said  service,  and  in  the  absence  of  fraud  on  the  part  of  the 
claimant  the  action  of  the  Bureau  in  withholding  payments  to 
reimburse  the  Government  was  erroneous. 

Reimhursement — Fraud   and   mistake — Increase — Rerating.     (Le- 
ander  H.  Prather,  13  P.  D.,  13.) 

The  error  corrected  by  the  reissue,  on  July  30,  1900,  of  the  cer- 
tificate of  this  pensioner  was  the  result  of  a  mistaken  diagnosis 
of  the  disability  on  account  of  which  he  has  been  pensioned,  and 
was  an  error  of  judgment  and  not  a  mistake  of  fact  as  to  his 
rank  in  the  service  at  the  time  it  w^as  contracted.  The  action 
withholding  payment  of  his  pension  to  reimburse  the  Govern- 
ment for  excess  of  pension  improperly  paid  him  as  of  the  rank 
of  second  lieutenant  was,  therefore,  erroneous. 

The  evidence  in  this  case  clearly  shows  that  this  pensioner  is 
entitled  to  a  higher  rating  than  he  has  received  since  1875  for 
his  disability  resulting  from  "  disease  of  right  shoulder  and  mus- 
cular atrophy,  result  of  typhoid  fever,"  the  disabling  causes  of 
accepted  service  origin  on  account  of  which  he  is  pensioned. 

Reimhursement — Accrued  pension — Fraud  and  mistake.      (John 
La  Mountain,  11  P.  D.,  395.) 


448  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Where  Bureau  officers  have  fairly  acted  in  the  exercise  of  dis- 
cretionary judgment  in  passing  upon  evidence  in  the  absence  of 
proof  of  fraud  upon  the  part  of  the  claimant,  no  future  discovery 
of  testimony  which  tends  to  discredit  that  first  acted  upon  can 
authorize  reimbursement  to  the  Government  from  accruing  pen- 
sion. 
Reimbursement — Mistake — Accrued  pension.  (James  Calhoun, 
deceased,  14  P.  D.,  152.) 

Where  a  pensioner's  name  is  dropped  from  the  rolls  under  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890,  and  payments  of  pension  are  continued 
through  error  on  the  part  of  a  pension  agent,  the  Government 
may  reimburse  itself  for  the  money  so  paid  out  of  the  accrued 
pension  in  claim  in  behalf  of  said  pensioner  for  renewal  of  pen- 
sion under  said  act. 

REJECTION. 

See  Dependent  Widow  :  No.  4  (15  P.  D.,  203). 
See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  11  (13  P.  D.,  411). 
See  Practice:  No.  15  (11  P.  D.,  455). 

REMARRIAGE. 

See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  6  (10  P.  D.,  244;  12  P.  D.,  509). 

See  Dependent  Widow:  No.  1  (15  P.  D.,  .329). 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  Nos.  1,  18  (15  P.  D.,  82,  136). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (bb)   (12  P.  D.,  340;  15  P.  D.,  413)  ;  Nos.  14,  15 

(9  P.  D.,  251 ;  14  P.  D.,  4.36). 
See  Minors:  No.  4  (12  P.  D.,  83). 
See  Reimbursement:  No.  2  (13  P.  D.,  201). 
See  Restoration:  Nos.  2,  4  (12  P.  D.,  114,  139,  316,  510;  13  P.  D., 

118,  286,  355,  378,  435;  14  P.  D.,  111,.  128,  194,  198,  318,  411,  452; 

13  P.  D.,  441;  14  P.  D.,  141;  15  P.  D.,  446). 

1.  Of  Mexican  War  Widows. 

Remarriage— Widows— Act  January  29, 1887.     (Dora  V.  Otis,  now 
Cowley,  widow,  10  P.  D.,  324.) 

Claimant  was  pensioned  as  the  widow  of  the  soldier  from  July 
16,  1890,  to  July  4,  1892 ;  she  remarried  July  6,  1892. 

Held:  That  her  remarriage  barred  her  further  title  to  pen- 
sion under  the  act  of  January  29,  1887,  and  that  her  name  was 
properly  dropped  from  the  rolls. 
Restoration — Act  January  29,  1887 — Remarriage.     (Dora  V.  Otis, 
now  Cowdey,  as  widow,  11  P.  D.,  338.) 

Section  4708  of  the  Revised  Statutes  is  applicable  to  widows 
pensioned  under  the  first  section  of  the  act  of  January  29,  1887, 
and  upon  the  remarriage  of  the  widow  pensioner  she  becomes  no 
longer  entitled  to  the  pension  under  the  provisions  of  said  first 
section,  the  provisions  of  the  second  section  providing  for  the 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  449 

continuance  and  enjoyment  of  such  pension  during  the  natural 
lives  of  the  persons  entitled  thereto  being  no  longer  applicable 
to  her. 

RENEWAL. 

See  Commencement:  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  17). 

See  Dependent  Widow:  No.  1  (15  P.  D.,  329). 

See  Fee:  No.  24  (14  P.  D.,  256). 

See  Practice:  No.  7  (9  P.  D.,  210). 

See  Restoration  :  No.  2  (13  P.  D.,  286 ;  15  P.  D.,  446). 

REOPENING. 

See  Practice  :  No.  6  (10  P.  D.,  321 ;  11  P.  D.,  95,  112). 

REPAYMENT. 

See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  255). 

RERATING. 

References. 

See  Appeals:  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  2.50)  ;  No.  7  (15  P.  D.,  2^5). 
See  Fee:  No.  17  (11  P.  D.,  202;  13  P.  D.,  75;  15  P.  D.,  273). 
See  Increase:  No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  290). 
See  Reduction:  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  83). 
See  Reimbursement:  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  13). 
See  Res  Judicata:  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  249). 
Index. 

1.  Widow  completing. 

2.  Practice  in. 

3.  Acts  of  June  27,  1890,  and  March  6,  1896. 

4.  Acts  of  August  4,  1886,  and  March  2,  1903. 

5.  Grounds  of. 

6.  Appeals. 

1.  Widow  Completing. 

Rerating — Widow  completing — Increase.     (Leander  J.  Moody,  de- 
ceased, 12  P.  D.,  212.) 

A  claim  for  rerating  not  having  been  on  file  with  the  papers  in 
her  deceased  husband's  invalid  claim  at  the  time  of  his  death,  the 
claim  of  the  appellant,  the  widow  of  the  decedent,  that  she  is 
entitled  to  have  the  original  allowance  of  his  pension  rerated 
from  the  date  of  his  discharge  to  the  date  on  which  a  substantial 
increase  in  rate  was  allowed  in  such  claim,  and  to  be  paid  the 
amount  of  the  pension  which  might  accrue  under  such  a  rerating, 
is  held  to  be  untenable,  as  under  the  rule  laid  down  in  the  case  of 
Rowland  A.  Colby  (7  P.  D.,  24)  "  the  widow  of  a  deceased  soldier 
has  no  right,  under  the  law,  to  make  and  prosecute  an  original 
claim  for  a  rerating  of  her  husband's  invalid  claim." 
13070—06 29 


450  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

2.  Practice  in. 

Rerating— Practice— Pathology.  (Cassilly  C.  Cook,  12  P.  D.,  188.) 
The  Bureau  issued  a  certificate  of  pension  at  the  rate  of  $15 
per  month  (three-fourths  total  of  rank  as  captain)  for  "  disease 
of  heart,  result  of  typhoid  fever,"  contracted  during  the  recent 
war  with  Spain,  to  the  appellant  in  this  case,  but  refused  to 
accept  as  established  his  allegation  that  he  was  also  disabled  by 
disease  of  nervous  system  (neurasthenia)  as  a  result  of  such  fever. 
In  the  judgment  of  the  Department,  however,  it  is  clearly 
shown  from  the  facts  j)resented,  the  evidence  adduced,  and  the 
medical  authorities  cited  that  the  nervous  affection  or  neuras- 
thenia which  wholly  disqualified  the  appellant  for  the  perform- 
ance of  manual  labor  from  October  25,  1898,  the  date  of  his  dis- 
charge, to  May  1, 1900,  the  date  of  the  medical  examination  show- 
ing recovery  from  neurasthenia,  was  without  doubt  a  sequel  of 
the  typhoid  fever  of  service  origin. 

Held:  That  it  would  not  be  contrary  to,  or  inconsistent  with, 
any  provision  of  law  or  rule  of  practice  to  rerate  this  claim  so  as 
to  allow  the  second-grade  rate  during  the  time  the  appellant  is 
shown  to  have  been  wholly  incapacitated  for  the  performance  of 
manual  labor  by  the  sequelae  of  typhoid  fever,  subsequent  to  the 
date  of  filing  his  application  for  pension. 

3.  Acts  of  Xune  27,  1890,  and  March  6,  1896. 

Rerating — Increase — Acts    June    ^7,    1890,    and    March    6,    1896. 
(William  I.  Bonsall,  13  P.  D.,  283.) 

1.  The  act  of  March  6,  1896,  has  no  application  to  this  case  for 
the  reason  that  claimant's  original  application  was  not  rejected, 
suspended,  nor  dismissed. 

2.  The  claim  for  increase  filed  March  9,  1899,  was  properly 
rejected,  as  claimant  died  before  being  examined  by  a  board  of 
surgeons,  as  section  4698-J  of  the  Revised  Statutes  provides  that 
no  increase  of  pension  shall  be  allowed  to  commence  prior  to  the 
date  of  the  examining  surgeon's  certificate  establishing  the  same, 
made  under  the  pending  claim  for  increase. 

4.  Acts  of  August  4,  1886,  and  March  2,  1903. 

Rerating — Acts  of  August  4?  1886.,  and  March  ^,  1903 — Practice. 
(John  W.  Smith,  14  P.  D.,  215.) 

The  claimant  received  the  highest  possible  rating  for  his  dis- 
ability prior  to  June  0,  1866,  and  he  was  not  entitled  to  a  higher 
rating  than  he  was  receiving  from  August  4,  1886.  A  rerating 
was  therefore  not  warranted. 

The  present  rating,  $30  per  month,  was  shown  by  the  report 
of  the  last  official  examination  to  be  adequate  for  the  pensioned 
disability,  gunshot  wound  of  right  thigh. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  451 

The  action  advising  the  claimant  that  he  is  not  entitled  to  the 
benefit  of  the  act  of  March  2,  1903,  as  alleged,  was  error.  He 
should  have  been  afforded  an  opportunity  to  show  that  he  was 
disabled  in  an  increased  degree,  irrespective  of  said  act.  Final 
action  should  be  taken  on  a  face  brief. 

5.  Grounds  of. 

Rerating — Schedule  of  rates.  (Henry  Crittenden,  9  P.  D.,  66.) 
The  fact  that  the. pensioner  did  not  receive  as  high  a  rate  of 
pension  for  slight  deafness  of  both  ears  as  others  have  received 
for  the  same  disability  during  the  same  period  (the  schedule  of 
rates  for  partial  deafness  having  been  modified  prior  to  the 
adjudication  of  his  claim)  is  not  good  ground  for  rerating,  the 
inequality  complained  of  resulting,  not  from  any  violation  of 
law,  but  from  a  difference  of  judgment  between  two  adminis- 
trative officers,  each  of  whom  acted  within  the  scope  of  his  legal 
authority. 

Rerating — Rate — Dudbility — Evidence.     (Alonzo  C.  Veale,  widow 
completing,  11  P.  D.,  299.) 

Title  to  rerating  becomes  clear  only  when  it  appears  manifest 
from  the  evidence  in  the  case  that  the  action  of  the  Bureau  was 
the  result  of  mistake  of  law  or  fact,  but  adjudications  long  since 
made  by  officers  of  the  Government  fairly  using  their  discretion- 
ary judgment,  within  its  proper  scope,  should  not  be  disturbed 
for  light  and  transient  causes;  and  in  this  case,  thirty  years 
having  elapsed  since  first  allowance  of  pension,  and  increase 
under  many  examinations,  the  rates  fixed  will  not  be  disturbed. 

6.  Appeals. 

Practice — Appeal — Rerating — Dismissal.     (William   H.   Gore,   15 
P.  D.,  299.) 

Held:  The  admission  of  a  claim,  with  allowance  of  an  unsatis- 
factory rate  of  pension,  is  a  final  action  from  which  the  claimant 
or  his  attorney  can,  by  the  exercise  of  a  reasonable  degree  of 
diligence,  appeal,  without  first  having  applied  at  the  Bureau 
for  rerating,  but  he  may  not  "  sleep  on  his  rights  "  for  several 
years,  file  new  claims  for  increase,  see  them  allowed,  or  if  they 
or  any  of  them  be  rejected,  make  no  complaint  at  the  Bureau  or 
to  the  Department,  and  then  after  having  eventually  secured 
increase  to  the  maximum  rate  allowable  under  the  law,  appeal  to 
the  Department  for  a  review  of  all  the  evidence,  filed  under 
each  of  said  preceding  claims,  without  having  first  applied-  at 
the  Bureau  for  a  rerating. 


452  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Practice — Appeal — Rrrcdlmj — Increase.     (James  O.  Caperton,  15 
P.  D.,  332.) 

Claimant  by  filing  increase  claims  without  protest  as  to  his 
original  rating,  waived  his  right  of  appeal  therefrom  without 
first  applying  to  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions  for  a  rerating 
and  read  judication  of  the  question  of  the  sufficiency  or  propriety 
of  that  rating  and  securing  a  decision  on  such  question,  and  his 
appeal  from  such  original  rating,  under  the  circumstances,  with- 
out having  first  applied  for  a  rerating  of  his  pension,  will  be 
dismissed. 

Practice — Appeal — Rerating.  (Andrew  H.  Wood,  15  P.  D.,  333.) 
A  pensioner  may  appeal  from  a  rating  allowed  him  without 
first  filing  a  claim  for  rerating  when  he  has  not  subsequently 
filed  any  claim  for  increase  or  otherwise  impliedly  accepted  such 
rating  as  sufficient;  distinguishing  case  of  James  O.  Caperton 
(15  P.  D.,  No.  97). 

REPRESENTATIVE  OF  ATTORNEY. 

See  Attorneys:  No.  17  (9  P.  D.,  478). 

REPUTATION. 

See  Estoppel:  No.  3  (14  P.  D.,  469). 

RESIDENCE  IN  SOLDIERS'  HOME. 

See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  10  (12  P.  D.,  237,  490;  15  P.  D.,  56, 
132). 

RES  JUDICATA. 

Beferences. 

See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  9  (15  P.  D.,  172). 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  No.  4  (15  P.  D.,  90)  ;  No.  15  (15  P.  D.,  Ill, 
557). 

See  Divorce:  No.  10  (15  P.  D.,  553). 

See  Increase:  No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  455). 

See  Jurisdiction  :  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  465). 

See  Practice:  No.  27  (13  P.  D.,  465). 

See  Restoration:  No.  6  (15  P.  D.,  483). 
Index. 

1.  Not  applicable  to  pension  claims. 

2.  Fraud  or  mistake. 

3.  Disturbing  old  adjudications. 

1.  Not  Applicable  to  Pension  Claims. 
Res  judicata — 8 tare  decisis — Reconsideration.     (James  Duval,  9 
,  P.  D.,  218.) 

Neither  the  doctrine  of  res  judicata  nor  stare  decisis  is  strictly 
applicable  to  claims  for  pension,  and  when  adopted  by  the  De- 
partment simply  becomes  a  rule  which  each  administration  pre- 


I. 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  453 

.  scribes  for  itself  as  a  matter  of  policy  or  convenience,  and  may  be 
waived,  suspended,  or  ignored,  as  justice,  policy,  or  convenience 
requires.     (Case  of  Mary  E.  Eastridge,  8  P.  D.,  5.) 

2.  Fraud  or  Mistake. 

Res  judicata — Evidence — Fraud  or  mistake.  (Minors  of  Daniel 
M.  Easley,  12  P.  D.,  179.) 

The  service  origin  of  the  soldier's  fatal  disease  having  been  ad- 
mitted in  the  case  of  the  widow,  after  a  special  examination,  the 
rejection  of  the  minors'  claim  on  the  ground  that  the  evidence 
was  insufficient  to  establish  such  origin  is  held  to  have  been  error. 

3.  Disturbing  Old  Adjudications. 

Res  judicata — Stare  decisis — ReraMng,  (Charles  F.  Borthwick, 
alias  Franklin  Brown,  10  P.  D.,  249.) 

Cases  long  since  adjudicated  by  previous  administrations  will 
not  be  disturbed  for  slight  or  trivial  reasons,  nor  upon  mere 
matter  of  opinion  as  to  the  weight  of  evidence,  nor  upon  any 
matter  involving  merely  an  exercise  of  judgment  or  discretion, 
but  only  when  glaring  .error,  mistake,  or  manifest  injustice  is 
apparent  from  the  record  or  the  evidence. 

See  Birney  Hoyt,  1  P.  D.,  70;  Isaac  Sell,  2  P.  D.,  172; 
Wallace  G.  Bone,  2  P.  D.,  310;  John  Burnham,  4  P.  D.,  98; 
Jackson  Martin,  7  P.  D.,  265 ;  Mary  E.  Eastridge,  8  P.  D.,  5 ; 
George  W.  Amos,  (ibid.,  271)  ;  James  M.  Marshall,  (ibid.,  395)  ; 
James  Duval,  9  P.  D.,  218;  William  Wilson,  10  P.  D.,  232.) 

RESTORATION. 

References. 

See  Accrued  Pension  :  No.  9  (13  P.  D.,  188). 

See  Adulterous  Cohabitation:   Nos.  7,  8,  9  (14  P.  D.,  362;   15  P.  D., 

48,  90). 
See  Dependent  Widow:    No.  1  (15  P.  D.,  329). 
See  Decree  of  Nullity  :  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  470). 
See  Desertion:    No.  3   (  9  P.  D.,  442)  ;    No.  3  (a)    (11  P.  D.,  373)  : 

No.  4  (b)    (15  P.  D.,  110,  525). 
See  Disloyalty:   Nos.  1,  9,  11  (9  P.  D.,  294;    13  P.  D.,  249,  259,  395; 

15P.  D.,  76). 
.   See  Divorce:   No.  0  (14  P.  D.,  438;    15  P.  D.,  128). 
See  Estoppel:  No.  4  (15  P.  D.,  47). 
See  Fee:   Nos.  1,  8  (9  P.  D.,  147,  3.55). 
See  Fraud  and  Mistake:   No.  1  (14  P.  D.,  57). 
See  Increase:   No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  455). 
See  Marriage:  No.  15  (15  P.  D.,  503). 

See  Prac'Hce:    Nos.  7,  1(5  (9  P.  D.,  210,  288;    11  P.  D.,  122). 
See  Remarriage:   No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  324;    11  P.  D.,  338). 
See  Service;   No.  4  (15  P.  D.,  158). 


454  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

RESTOHATION— Continued. 

Index. 

1.  Increase. 

2.  Act  March  3,  1901. 

3.  Section  4719,  Revised  Statutes. 

4.  Void  marriage. 

1.  Increase. 

Restoration — Increase.     (George  Baltzer,  10  P.  D.,  37.) 

Claimant  having  been  a  pensioner  under  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  at  the  rate  of  $6  per  month,  his  name  was  dropped  from  the 
roll  under  said  act,  and  was  i^laced  on  the  roll  under  the  general 
law.  September  16,  1896,  he  filed  a  claim  for  renewal  and  in- 
crease under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  which  was  allowed  by 
reissue  on  October  7,  1897,  at  $10  per  month  from  date  of  filing, 
September  16,  1896. 

Held:  That  this  was  error;  as  the  claim  was  one  for  restora- 
tion his  name  should  have  been  restored  at  the  rate  of  $6  instead 
of  $10,  as  increase  can  only  commence  from  the  date  of  the  cer- 
tificate of  medical  examination  showing  an  increased  disability 
under  section  4698J,  Revised  Statutes. 

2.  Act  March  3,  1901. 

Restoration — Act  of  March  3,  1901 — Widows.     (Mary  E.   Rice, 
formerly  Paulding,  alleged  w^idow,  12  P.  D.,  114.) 

It  appearing  from  the  official  records  of  the  War"  Department 
that  during  the  period  that  this  appellant  was  the  wife  of  the 
deceased  officer,  from  January  13,  1880,  to  May  1,  1883,  he  ren- 
dered no  military  service  in  any  w^ar,  but  that  during  the  whole 
of  said  j)eriod  his  service  in  the  Regular  Army  of  the  United 
States  was  that  of  a  post  surgeon  in  time  of  peace,  she  has  no 
title  to  restoration,  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  March  3, 
1901,  of  the  pension  which  she  formerly  received  as  the  widow 
of  said  officer. 

Widow'' s  claim — Act  of  March  3, 1901 — Remarriage.     (Susan  Crys- 
ler,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  139.) 

The  claijnant's  name  never  having  been  on  the  rolls  under  the 
general  law,  she  has  no  title  to  pension  under  said  act;  and  as 
there  is  no  pensionable  period  between  the  date  of  the  death  of 
the  soldier  and  claimant's  remarriage  her  name  can  not  now  be 
placed  on  the  rolls  under  the  general  law. 

Restoration' — Act    of    March    3,    1901 — Remarriage  —  Widoivs. 
(Henrietta  Eldridge,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  316.) 

As  the  claimant  has  never  received  a  pension  and  is  not 
entitled  to  one  under  existing  law,  the  act  of  March  3,  1901,  con- 
ferred no  benefit  upon  her. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  456 

Marriage  and  divorce — Act  of  March  3, 1901.  (Annie  M.  Palmer, 
now  Umberger,  widow,  12  P.  D.,  510.) 

It  appearing  from  the  evidence  in  this  case  and  from  this  ap- 
pellant's own  admission  that  she  w^as  divorced  from  her  second 
husband,  Thomas  E.  Umberger,  upon  his  application,  she  has 
no  title  whatever,  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  March  3, 
1901,  to  restoration  of  the  pension  she  formerly  received  as  the 
widow  of  the  deceased  soldier,  David  D.  Palmer. 

Restoration  under  act  of  March  3^  1901 — Divorce — Widows, 
(Hannah  C.  Rich,  as  widow,  13  P.  D.,  118.) 

Soldier  died  while  in  the  service,  and  his  widow  was  pensioned. 
She  received  the  pension  until  her  remarriage,  October  13,  1871. 
Her  last  husband  died  December  5,  1898,  in  New  York.  On  his 
petition  he  had  obtained  a  divorce  from  claimant. 

Held:  That  the  divorce  having  been  obtained  by  her  second 
husband  and  not  upon  her  ow^n  application,  she  has  no  title  to 
pension  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1901. 

Restoration — Renewal — Acts  of  March  3^  1901^  and  March  5, 
18Go.  (Mary  Nicholas,  as  widow  of  Francis  Wallace,  13  P.  D., 
286.) 

Pension  certificate  having  been  duly  issued  in  December,  1864, 
signed,  and  delivered  to  claimant  as  widow  of  the  soldier,  she  was 
"  placed  upon  the  pension  roll  "  thereby  within  the  meaning  of 
the  act  of  March  3,  1901,  although  no  pension  was  ever  paid  her 
under  such  certificate,  pension  being  subsequently,  under  the  act 
of  March  3,  1865,  granted  and  paid  the  soldier's  minor  child. 

Restoration — Act  of  March  3,  1901 — Remarriage.  (Sophia  J.  E. 
AYoehl,  as  widow,  13  P.  D.,  355.) 

Claimant  was  pensioned  under  the  third  section  of  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890,  as  the  Avidow  of  Ramond  Woehl,  but  her  name 
was  dropped  from  the  roll  because  of  her  remarriage  in  1894. 
She  was  divorced  from  her  second  husband  in  1901,  upon  her 
own  petition,  whereupon  she  filed  a  claim  for  restoration  to  the 
pension  roll  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1901. 

Held :  That  as  her  name  was  never  on  the  pension  roll  "  be- 
cause of  her  husband's  death  as  a  result  of  wound  or  injuries  re- 
ceived or  disease  contracted  in  '  the  military  or  naval  service,' " 
and  was  not  soldier's  lawful  wife  "  during  the  period  of  his 
service  in  any  war,"  she  does  not  come  within  the  provisions  of 
the  act  of  March  3,  1901,  and  her  name  can  not  be  restored. 

Restoration — Act  of  March  3,  1901 — Two  pensions.  (Ann  M. 
Hale,  now  Butterbaugh,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  378.) 

A  widow  pensioner  on  account  of  a  second  soldier  husband 
may  file  and  prosecute  a  claim  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1901, 


456  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

for  restoration  to  pension  on  account  of  a  prior  soldier  husband, 
and  may  be  restored  under  such  claim  on  surrender  of  her  pres- 
ent certificate,  payments  under  which  may  be  continued  to  date 
of  issuance  of  certificate  of  restoration  and  deducted  from  pay- 
ments thereunder. 
Restoration — Act  of  March  3,  1901— ^Remarriage — Divorce.  (Su- 
sannah Elmore,  formerly  Long,  as  widow,  13  P.  D.,  435.) 

Claimant's  pension  under  the  general  law  having  terminated 
by  reason  of  her  subsequent  marriage  to  a  man  who  procured  a 
divorce  from  her,  she  is  not  entitled  to  restoration  under  the  act 
of  March  3,  1901. 
Restoimtion — Act  of  March  3, 1901 — Divorce.  (Emaline  S.  Lamb, 
formerly  Griswold,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  111.) 

The  act  of  March  3,  1901,  does  not  relate  to  the  divorce  from 
any  other  than  the  husband  on  account  of  whom  a  widow's  pen- 
sion was  terminated. 

Claimant  having  been  legally  divorced,  on  her  own  application 
and  without  fault  on  her  part,  from  Artemus  Bennett,  on  account 
of  her  marriage  to  whom  her  pension  was  terminated,  she  is  en- 
titled to  be  restored  to  the  pension  rolls  under  the  provision  of 
said  act. 
Restoration! — A  ct  of  March  3, 1901 — Remarriage — Dropping.  ( Isa- 
bella Winfield,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  128.) 

Claimant,  a  pensioner  under  the  general  law,  was  deprived  of 
pension,  and  payment  thereafter  made  to  the  guardian  of  the 
minor,  under  what  is  now  section  4706,  Revised  Statutes,  because 
she  had  abandoned  the  care  and  custody  of  the  said  minor.  She 
thereafter  remarried,  she  claims  the  second  husband  is  dead,  and 
invokes  the  act  of  March  3,  1901. 

Held:  The  act  of  March  3,  1901,  has  no  bearing  whatever, 
either  by  implication  or  otherwise,  upon  the  statute  under  which 
this  claimant's  pension  was  suspended ;  it  relates  only  to  the  title 
and  status  of  widows  whose  names  have  been  dropped  from  the 
pension  rolls  because  of  their  remarriage. 
Restoration — Act  of  March  3, 1901 — Remarriage — Dropping.  (Is- 
abella Winfield,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  194.) 

The  act  of  March  3,  1901,  relates  only  to  the  title  and  status 
of  widows  whose  names  have  been  dropped  from  the  pension 
rolls  because  of  their  remarriage,  and  has  no  application  to  wid- 
ows whose  names  were  dropped  under  section  4706  of  the  Revised 
Statutes. 
Restoration — Act  of  March  3,  1901 — Divorce.  (Laura  A.  Ingalls, 
widow,  14  P.  D.,  198.) 

Claimant's  second  husband  secured  a  divorce  from  her  on  his 
application  prior  to  the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  act  of  March 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  457 

3,  1901.     The  divorce  subseqiienth^  secured  on  her  own  applica- 
tion is  without  force  and  effect  and  is  not  valid.     Action  affirmed. 

Restoration — Act  of  March  J,  1901 — Fraud  and  mistake — Evi- 
dence. (Sarah  Mathers,  formerly  Miller,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  318.) 
1.  The  act  of  March  3,  1901,  predicates  title  to  restoration  upon 
these  conditions:  (1)  That  claimant  was  the  wife  of  soldier  dur- 
ing his  military  service;  (2)  that  pension  had  been  allowed  her 
under  the  provisions  of  the  general  law;  (3)  that  her  name  was 
dropped  from  the  roll  on  account  of  her  remarriage;  (4)  that 
said  remarriage  has  been  dissolved  by  death,  or  by  divorce  "  upon 
her  own  application  and  without  fault  on  her  part;"  (5)  that 
she  is  dependent  within  the  meaning  of  the  acts  of  June  27,  1890, 
and  May  9,  1900.  If  these  essential  facts  are  shown  affirma- 
tivel}^  the  claimant  "  shall  be  entitled  to  have  her  name  again 
placed  on  the  pension  roll,"  and  it  is  error  to  adjudicate  the  claim 
de  novo. 

2.  In  cases  where  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions,  in  the  exercise 
of  his  discretion,  has  passed  upon  given  facts,  has  admitted  the 
title  of  claimant  to  a  pension,  and  has  issued  a  certificate  there- 
for, it  is  contrary  to  public  policy  for  a  successor  in  his  office, 
the  material  facts  being  the  same,  again  to  place  claimant's  title 
in  issue,  unless  there  be  newly  discovered  evidence  of  facts  ma- 
terial to  said  issue,  or  evidence  of  fraud,  or  error  in  law,  or  plain 
mistake  of  fact — not  mistake  of  judgment  in  matters  involving 
the  exercise  of  discretion  on  the  part  of  an  officer. 

3.  Evidence  merely  cumulative  in  its  character  is  not  "  newly 
discovered  evidence  "  warranting  the  reopening  of  a  claim. 

Restoration — A ct  of  March  3^  1901 — Divorce — Evidence.  ( Elizabeth 
Vallean,  now  Goshorn,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  411.) 

The  evidence  shows  that  claimant  secured  a  divorce  from  her 
second  husband  on  her  cross  bill  by  a  verdict  of  a  jury  and  was 
awarded  alimony.  She  therefore  is  entitled  to  restoration  under 
the  act  of  March  3,  1901,  as  it  must  be  presumed  the  divorce 
was  granted  without  fault  on  her  part. 

Restoration — Act  of  March  3,  1901 — Divorce.  (Ellen  A.  Moer, 
widow,  14  P.  D.,  452.) 

Claimant  was  dropped  from  the  roll  on  account  of  her  remar- 
riage ;  and  she  was  thereafter  divorced  from  her  second  husband 
upon  his  own  petition,  the  record  showing  competent  jurisdic- 
tion. There  are  no  indicia  of  fraud  on  the  part  of  either  party 
to  the  decree  tending  to  show  an  attempt  to  defraud  the  Govern- 
ment. 

Held:  Claimant  has  no  status  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1901. 
The  fact  that  claimant's  divorced  husband  died  prior  to  the 


458  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

filing  of  the  claim  for  restoration  does  not  give  her  title  under 
the  act  of  March  8,  1901. 
Restoration — Act  of  March  3, 1901 — Construction.     (Annie  Gaebel, 
now  Kohr,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  381.) 

To  entitle  a  claimant  to  have  her  name  restored  to  the  roll 
under  the  act  of  March  3,  1901,  it  must  be  shown,  among  other 
things,  that  the  soldier  died  as  the  result  of  wound  or  injury 
received  or  disease  contracted  in  his  military  service  in  a  war. 

Restoration — Renewal — Act  of  March  3,  1901 — Remarriage — Di- 
vorce.    (Rosetta  Washington,  widoAv,  15  P.  D.,  446.) 

The  man  to  whom  the  claimant  was  held  to  have  remarried 
being  yet  living  and  undivorced  from  her,  she  has  no  title  to 
renewal  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1901. 

The  question  of  the  fact  or  the  legality  of  a  widow's  remar- 
riage may  not  properly  be  adjudicated  or  determined  in  a  claim 
under  that  act. 

3.  Section  4719,  Revised  Statutes. 

Restoration— Rate.     (Joseph  C.  King,  9  P.  D.,  430.) 

Where  the  degree  of  disability  shown  at  time  of  original 
allowance  did  not  warrant  the  rate  of  pension  named  in  the 
original  certificate,  and  pensioner's  name  was  dropped  from  the 
rolls  by  reason  of  his  failure  to  claim  the  same  for  three  years, 
upon  application  for  restoration  pension  may  be  restored  at  a 
less  rate  than  that  originally  allowed. 

Restoration — Section  Jf719^  Revised  Statutes — Dropping.  (Charles 
W.  Berger,  13  P.  D.,  392.) 

Soldier  being  a  pensioner  at  the  rate  of  $8  per  month  ceased 
to  draw  his  pension  subsequent  to  September,  1864,  and  was 
thereafter  dropped  from  the  roll  under  section  4719,  Revised 
Statutes.  On  application  for  restoration  his  name  was  restored 
at  the  rate  of  $4  per  month,  the  rate  to  which  he  was  shown  to 
be  entitled  by  the  certificate  of  a  medical  examination  held  under 
the  claim. 

Held:  'No  error. 

Restoration — Section  1^719 — Dropping.  (Eliza  G.  Brown,  widow, 
14  P.  D.,  106.) 

It  is  a  satisfactory  accounting,  within  the  meaning  of  section 
4719  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  of  a  pensioner's  failure  for  three 
years  to  claim  his  pension,  when  it  satisfactorily  appears  from 
the  evidence  that  such  pension  had  not  legally  terminated  in  some 
of  the  w^ays  or  for  some  of  the  causes  specified,  or  by  necessary 
implication  included  in  the  pension  laws  as  terminating  pension. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  459 

4.  Void  Marriage. 

Restoration — Marriage — Remarriage — Void  marriage.  ( Hannah 
Kingsley,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  441.) 

The   evidence    showing   that   the   claimant's   remarriage,    by 
which  her  name  was  dropped  from  the  rolls,  Avas  a  nullity,  she 
is  entitled  to  restoration  from  date  of  dropping. 
Restoration — Fraud  or  mistake — Void  marriage.     (Eliza  J.  Eve- 
land,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  141.) 

Appellant  was  pensioned  under  the  general  law  from  May  17, 
1871,  to  February  16,  1874,  when  her  name  was  dropped  from 
the  rolls  because  of  her  supposed  marriage  with  one  Gray.  Sub- 
sequently the  minors'  application  was  rejected  on  the  ground 
that  the  widow  was  still  living,  her  marriage  to  Gray  being  de- 
clared null  and  void  on  the  ground  that  he  had  a  wife  living  and 
undivorced  at  the  time  of  his  pretended  marriage  to  claimant. 
Whereupon  the  widow  applied  for  restoration,  but  her  claim  was 
rejected  on  the  ground  of  no  record  nor  other  satisfactory  evi- 
dence showing  origin  of  fatal  disease,  and  no  satisfactory  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  of  the  same  at  discharge  or  for  a  long  time 
thereafter,  and  the  claimant,  though  aided  by  special  examina- 
tion, had  failed  to  establish  the  claim. 

Held:  That  claimant  having  once  established  her  claim  and 
having  been  allowed  and  paid  the  pension,  that  finding  can  not 
be  legally  set  aside  unless  positive  affirmative  testimony  is  pro- 
duced showing  fraud  or  that  the  testimony  on  which  the  claim 
was  allowed  was  not  true. 

5.  Fraud  Prevents. 

Restoration — Vested  right — Dropping — Notice — Fraud.  (Annie 
Hughes,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  475.) 

The  grant  of  pension  is  the  bestowal  of  a  gratuity.  Ele- 
mentary rules  of  equity  so  far  obtain  in  proceedings  for  pension 
as  to  justify  the  Department  in  refusing  to  apply  certain  stat- 
utes governing  procedure  in  claims  where  appellant's  original 
status  is  acquired  through  fraud. 

Where  a  party  is  dropped  from  the  rolls  on  grounds  that  are 
untenable  and  the  right  to  restoration,  so  far  as  said  grounds 
for  dropping  are  concerned,  is  favorably  determined  on  appeal 
and  said  party  is  then  refused  restoration  by  the  Bureau  on 
other  grounds  based  on  the  fraud  of  the  claimant,  if  the  fraud  of 
the  claimant  clearly  appears  the  party  is  estopped  from  claiming 
any  advantage  under  the  act  of  December  21,  1893. 


460  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

6.  No  Disability  Prevents. 

Restoration — Evidence — Fraud  and  mistake — Res  judicata.  (Wil- 
liam Henley,  15  P.  D.,  483.) 

Claimant  was  dropped  from  the  rolls,  after  a  special  examina- 
tion, upon  the  ground  that  the  evidence  fails  to  show  service 
origin  of  his  disability.  He  applied  for  restoration,  which  was 
refused  upon  the  same  grounds.  The  evidence  upon  which  the 
claim  was  originally  allowed  was  weak.  Newly  discovered  evi- 
dence, not  cumulative,  adduced  upon  special  examination,  dis- 
closed new  and  material  facts,  presenting  a  weaker  case. 

While  it  is  contrary  to  public  policy  twice  to  put  a  claimant's 
title  in  issue  on  the  same  evidence,  errors  in  law  or  newly  dis- 
covered evidence  disclosing  fraud  or  plain  mistake  of  fact  (not 
mistake  of  judgment  on  facts  involving  the  exercise  of  discre- 
tion) fully  warrant  the  read  judication  of  the  claim  de  novo. 

The  newly  discovered  evidence  in  this  case  indicates  mistakes 
of  fact  in  the  original  adjudication  of  the  claim,  and  refusal  of 
restoration  Avas  not  error. 

Distinguishing  the  case  of  Sarah  Mathers  (14  P.  D.,  318). 

ANNOTATION. 

T\Tiere  a  widow  Avas  dropped  from  the  rolls  under  the  general 
law  by  reason  of  remarriage  and  later  obtains  a  Avidow's  pen- 
sion under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  as  the  widow  of  her  second 
husband,  and  while  in  receipt  of  said  last-mentioned  pension 
applies  for  restoration  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1901,  as  the 
widow  of  her  first  husband,  and  all  the  requirements  of  the  act 
of  March  3,  1901,  are  complied  with,  except  as  to  her  dependence, 
the  question  presents  itself,  "  Will  the  evidence  on  file  as  to  her 
dependence  in  her  June,  act  claim  be  sufficient  to  show  the 
dependence  required  by  the  act  of  March  3,  1901  ?  I  think  not, 
but  am  of  the  opinion  that  proof  of  present  dependence  must  be 
filed,  and  for  the  following  reasons: 

The  Wheeler  case  (15  P.  D.,  329)  decides  that  a  widow  on  the 
rolls  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  may  not  have  her  name 
dropped  from  the  rolls  for  a  cessation  of  dependency.  Therefore, 
if  a  widow  has  been  on  the  rolls  for  some  length  of  time  under 
the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  the  proof  on  file  in  that  case  might  not 
show  her  present  dependence.  The  widow  may  not  noiv  be  de- 
pendent. The  act  of  March  3,  1901,  requires  that  the  widow 
must  be  dependent  note,'  that  is,  Avhen  her  claim  for  restoration 
is  filed,  and  it  has  been  decided  in  the  case  of  Sophia  J.  E.  Woehl 
(13  P.  D.,  355)  that  in  order  to  restore  the  name  of  a  widoAv  to 
the  rolls  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1901,  every  requirement  of 
the  act  must  be  established. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  461 

RETIRED  OFFICER. 

See  Line  of  Duty:  No.  12  (11  P.  D.,  28). 

RETROACTIVE  LAWS. 

See  Construction  of  Statutes:  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  77,  90). 
See  Division  of  Pension  :  No.  4  (15  P.  D.,  342). 
See  Disloyalty:  No.  9  (13  P.  D.,  249,  259). 
See  Marriage:  No.  2  (s)   (15  P.  D.,  462). 

RETROACTIVE  LEGISLATION. 

See  Dependent  Widow  :  No.  3  (13  P.  D.,  31). 

RETROSPECTIVE  LAWS. 

See  Disloyalty:  No.  9  (13  P.  D.,  249,  259). 

REVIEW. 

See  Appeals:  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  374)  ;  No.  4  (11  P.  D.,  519). 

REVENUE  CUTTER. 

See  Service:  No.  11  (9  P.  D.,  96,  182,  395;  10  P.  D.,  401). 

RHEUMATISM. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  89). 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  Nos.  13,  22  (13  P.  D.,  192;  15  P.  D., 
249). 

RHODE  ISLAND  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (hh)   (15  P.  D.,  543). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  :  for  15  P.  D. 

RULE  TO  SHOW  CAUSE. 

See  Fee:  No.  3  (9  P.  D.,  136). 

RULE  1  OF  RULES  OF  PRACTICE. 

See  Appeals  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  132). 

RULE  2  OF  RULES  OF  PRACTICE. 

See  Attorneys  :  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  143). 
See  Practice  :  No.  17  (12  P.  D.,  411). 

RULE  12  OF  RULES  OF  PRACTICE. 

See  Attorneys  :   No.  9  (9  P.  D.,  213). 

RULE  13  OF  RULES  OF  PRACTICE. 

See  Attorneys  :   No.  10  (14  P.  D.,  328). 
See  Practice:   No.  25  (14  P.  D.,  68). 

RULE  16  OF  RULES  OF  PRACTICE. 

See  Division  of  Pension  :   No.  15  (14  P.  D.,  313). 
See  Practice  :  No.  21  (13  P.  D.,  203). 


462  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

KULE  19  OF  RULES  OF  PRACTICE. 

See  Division  of  Pension  :   No.  15  (15  P.  D.,  218). 
See  Practice:   No.  22  (13  P.  D.,  542). 

RULE  20  OF  RULES  OF  PRACTICE. 

See  Practice  :   No.  10  (13  P.  D.,  347). 

SABINE  INDIAN  WAR. 

See  Service:   No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  177). 

SCHEDULE  OF  RATES. 

See  Rebating:  No.  5  (9  P.  D.,  66). 

SEA  PAY. 

See  Commencement:  No.  11  (12  P.  D.,  428). 

SECRETARY  OF  WAR. 

See  Jurisdiction  :  No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  416). 

SECRETARY  OF  THE  INTERIOR. 

See  Limitation  :  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  152). 

SECTIONS  2418-2424  AND  2428,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Bounty  Land:  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  312). 

SECTION  2444,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Bounty  Land:  No.  1  (12  P.  D.,  184). 

SECTIONS  4692,  4693,  AND  4694,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Desertion  :  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  382)  ;  No.  6  (9  P.  D.,  255). 
See  Jurisdiction  :  No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  416). 

SECTION  4693,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Service:   Nos.  10,  20  (12  P.  D.,  385,  500). 

SECTION  4698i,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Commencement  :  No.  3  (9  P.  D.,  259;  14  t.  D.,  69). 

SECTION  4701,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Service:  No.  21  (12  P.  D.,  407). 

SECTION  4702,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Accrued  Pension:  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  8). 
See  Line  of  Duty  :  No.  7  (14  P.  D.,  114). 
See  Minors:  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  405). 
See  Practice:  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  486). 
See  Special  Act:  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  424). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  463 

SECTIONS  4704,  4705,  4707,  AND  4723,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  104). 

SECTION  4705,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Legitimacy:  No.  4  (15  P.  D.,  38(j). 

See  Marriage:  No.  11  (12  P.  D.,  517)  ;  No.  15  (11  P.  D.,  181). 

.SECTION  4706,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Abandonment:   (7  P.  D.,  437;  8  P.  D.  42.) 

SECTION  4707,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Dependent  Parents  (the  whole  chapter):  (9  P.  D,,  287;  10 
P.  D.,  78,  104,  153,  244,  299 ;  11  P.  D.,  171,  247,  297 ;  12  P.  D.,  24, 
129,  131,  361,  401,  509 ;  13  P.  D.,  241,  432 ;  14  P.  D.,  267,  271,  294 ; 
15  P.  D.,  18,  100,  106,  172,  194,  335). 

See  Dependent  Widow  :  No.  5  (15  P.  D.,  324). 

See  Dependent  Brothers  and  Sisters:  No.  1  (14  P.  D.,  4). 

See  Fee:  No.  14  (11  P.  D.,  514). 

SECTION   4707,   REVISED   STATUTES,   AS   AMENDED   BY  ACT   OF 
JUNE  27,  1890. 

See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  2  (11  P.  D.,  171,  247;  15  P.  D.,  18,  100, 
106,  194;  10  P.  D.,  78)  ;  No.  3  (12  P.  D.,  24)  ;  No.  4  (12  P.  D.,  361; 
13  P.  D.,  432)  ;  No.  6  (10  P.  D.,  244;  12  P.  D.,  509)  ;  No.  7  (10 
P.  D.,  299)  ;  No.  9  (15  P.  D.,  172). 

See  Fee:  No.  14  (11  P.  D.,  514). 

SECTION  4713,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Anterebellion  Service:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  220). 
See  Commencement:  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  175). 
See  Limitation  :  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  417). 
See  Navy  Pensions:  No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  410). 

SECTION  4714,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Declarations  :  Nos.  3,  4  (9  P.  D.,  7;  10  P.  D.,  292). 

SECTION  4715,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Navy  Pensions  :  No.  3  (12  P.  D.,  166). 

See  Payment  of  Pension  :  No.  2  (10  P.  D.,  281). 

See  Reimbursement:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  84). 

SECTION  4716,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Accrued  Pension:   No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  241)  ;   Nos.  10,  11  (14  P.  D., 

104,  422). 
See  Disloyalty  :  Nos.  1,  2,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11  (9  P.  D.,  146,  279, 

294,  366 ;  10  P.  D.,  72,  86,  125,  210 ;  11  P.  D.,  64,  124,  -136,  290,  327 ; 

12  P.  D.  12,  45 ;    13  P.  D.,  128,  249,  259,  395 ;    14  P.  D.,  104,  422 ;    15 

P.D.,  76,  337,  369). 


464  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

SECTION  4716,  REVISED  STATUTES,  AND  ACT  OF  JUNE  27,  1890. 

See  Accrued  Pension:  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  241)  ;  Nos.  10,  11  (14  P.  D., 

104,  422). 
See  Disloyalty:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  72,  210;  15  P.  D.,  70,  369)  ;  No.  0 

(13  P.  D.,  248,  259)  ;  No.  10  (14  P.  D.,  104,  422)  ;  No.  11  (13  P.  D., 

349,395). 

SECTION  4719,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Accrued  Pension:  No.  9  (13  P.  D.,  188). 
See  Restoration:  No.  3  (13  P.  D.,  392). 

SECTION  4720,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Commencement:  No.  12  (13  P.  D.,  331). 
See  Fraud  and  Mistake:  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  428). 

SECTION  4730,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Commencement:  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  175). 

SECTION  4756,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Navy  Pensions:  Nos.  1,  3  (11  P.  D.,  410;  12  P.  D.,  166). 

SECTION  4757,  REVISED  STATUTES. 

See  Navy  Pensions:  Nos.  1,  2,  3  (11  P.  D.,  410;  12  P.  D.,  166;  14 
P.  D.,  224). 

SENILE  CATARACT. 

See  Line  of  Duty:  No.  16  (14  P.  D.,  495). 

SENILITY. 

See  Disability:  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  50). 

SEPARATION. 

See  Divorce:  No.  6  (15  P.  D.,  128). 

See  Division  of  Pension:  Nos.  4,  7,  16  (12  P.  D.,  56,  364,  421,  507; 
13  P.  D.,  24,  301). 

SERVICE. 

References. 

See  Age:  No.  2  (11  P.  D.,  193,  240,  286). 

See  Anterebellion  Service:  Nos.  1,  2  (9  P.  D.,  220,  193). 

See  Army  Nurses:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  188). 

See  Bounty  Land:  Nos.  2,  3  (15  P.  D.,  62,  147,  312,  351,  561). 

See  Board  of  Enrollment:  No.  1  (11  P.  D,,  183). 

See  Desertion:  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  144)  ;  No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  332)  ;  No.  3 
(a)  (12  P.  D.,  25.3,  379)  ;  No.  4  (a)  (12  P.  D.,  450)  ;  No.  4  (c)  (13 
P.  D.,  346;  14  P.  D.,  552)  ;  No.  4  (d)  (15  P.  D.,  215)  ;  No.  4  (f)  (14 
P.  D.,  352,  502)  ;  No.  5  (12  P.  D.,  137)  ;  No.  7  (15  P.  D.,  276). 

See  Discharge:  Nos.  1,  4,  5  (10  P.  D.,  14;  14  P.  D.,  283,  326,  413; 
15  P.  D.,  378). 

See  Evidence:  No.  11  (11  P.  D.,  523). 

See  Identity:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  33). 

See  Jurisdiction:  No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  416). 

See  Practice:  No.  17  (12  P.  D.,  157). 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 


465 


SERVICE— Continued. 
Index. 

1.  Presumption  as  to. 

2.  Record  of. 

3.  In  Indian  wars. 

4.  In  Mexican  war. 

5.  In  war  of  the  rebellion. 

6.  In    Beaty's    Independent 

Scouts. 

7.  Civilian  employees. 

8.  Drafted  men  and  substi- 

tutes. 

9.  In  Home  Guards. 

10.  In  the  militia. 

11.  On  revenue  cutters. 

12.  As  pilot. 

13.  Unassigned  recruit. 

14.  Not  service  in  war. 

15.  Act  March  25,  1862. 

16.  Act  June  27,  1890. 


Index — Continued. 

17.  Muster    out    to    receive 

commission. 

18.  As  substitute. 

19.  Enrollment  and  muster 

as  wagon  master. 

20.  Enlistment. 

21.  Section     4701      Revised 
Statutes    and    act    June 

27,  1890. 

22.  Length  of. 

23.  Mississippi  Marine  Bri- 
gade. 

24.  Termination  of  war  of 

the  rebellion. 

25.  Prior  service. 

26.  Contract  surgeons — Act 

June  27,  1890. 

27.  Desertion. 

28.  Evidence — Record. 


1.  Presumption  as  to. 

Service — Discharge — Presumption.  (Minors  of  Daniel  Hallowaj^ 
9  P.  D.,  18.) 

Where  the  record  of  the  War  Department  shows  soldier's  en- 
listment in  a  three  months'  service  in  1861,  and  said  Department 
reports  that  it  is  unable  from  any  evidence  before  it  to  determine 
soldier's  final  record ;  and  the  records  of  said  Department  show 
a  subsequent  honorable  service  and  discharge  of  said  soldier  from 
a  three  years'  service,  it  is 

Held:  That  as  no  charge  of  desertion,  absence  without  leave, 
or  other  counter  presumption  is  involved,  the  legal  presumption 
of  innocence  should  prevail,  and  soldier  be  presumed  to  have  been 
discharged  from  said  first  service  at  the  expiration  of  his  first 
term  of  enlistment. 

2.  Record  of. 

Service — Jiirisdictiorb — Record.  (David  H.  Dyer,  9  P.  D.,  87.) 
The  amended  record  of  the  War  Department  shows  claimant 
accepted  into  service  on  December  20,  1864;  paid  as  private  up 
to  and  discharged  on  April  13,  1865.  He  was  furloughed  on 
January  14,  1865 ;  availed  himself  of  said  furlough  on  February 
2,  1865;  held  himself  under  military  orders,  and  obeyed  the 
order  of  the  military  authorities  requiring  him  to  report  at 
Indianapolis.  His  discharge  was  delivered  on  May  29,  1865. 
He  had  no  knowledge,  neither  did  he  receive  any  intimation  of 
any  kind,  previous  to  x^pril  13,  1865,  that  he  had  been  or  was  to 


be  discharged. 


13070—06- 


-30 


466  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Held:  1.  On  the  record,  corroborated  by  reliable  evidence,  sol- 
di^Y  was  in  the  service  of  the  United  States  during  the  war  of 
the  rebellion  for  more  than  ninety  days.  (Poland's  Ajopeal,  8 
P.  D.,  266,  followed.) 

2.  This  Department  is  bound  to  accept  as  true  the  iin im- 
peached record  of  the  War  Department,  but  it  alone  has  poAver 
to  determine  what  effect  such  record  shall  have  0]i  a  claimant's 
pensionable  rights. 

3.  In  Indian  Wars. 

Service — Indian    wars — Act   July   27^   1892.     (Wilhemina    Roth, 
widow,  9  P.  D.,  143.) 

The  Florida  war  closed  August  14,  1842.  Soldier's  service  at 
Newport,  Ky.,  from  November  9,  1839  to  October  31,  1842,  when 
forwarded  to  his  regiment,  which  he  joined  November  29,  1842, 
was  not  service  "  for  thirty  days  in  the  Black  Hawi^  war,  the 
Creek  war,  the  Cherokee  disturbances,  or  the  Florida  war  with 
the  Seminole  Indians,  embracing  a  period  from  1832  to  1842, 
inclusive^"  and  his  widow  is  not  pensionable  under  the  act  of 
July  27, 1892. 

Service — Indian   wars — act  July  27.,  1892.     (Susan  C.   Peniston, 
widow,  9  P.  D.,  178.) 

As  the  report  from  the  War  Department  show^s  that  the  mili- 
tary organization  in  which  this  soldier  served  from  August  26, 
1832,,  to  September  30,  1832,  cooperated  with  the  main  body  of 
troops  in  the  suppression  of  the  Indian  hostilities  during  the 
Black  Hawk  w  ar,  his  service  is  held  to  be  sufficient  to  comply 
with  the  requirements  of  the  act  of  July  27,  1892. 

Service — Indian  wars — Act  July  27.,  1892.     (Catharine   Waters, 
widow,  9  P.  D.,  206.) 

The  official  records  show^  that  the  soldier  did  not  serte  the 
required  time  in  the  Florida  w^ar  to  entitle  his  w^idow  to  pension 
under  the  act  of  July  27,  1892. 

Service — Indian  wars — Act  July  27^  1892.     (Elizabeth  W.  Wood, 
widow,  lOP.  D.,  26). 

Under  the  act  of  July  27,  1892,  service  rendered  in  the  Black 
Hawk  war,  the  Creek  war,  the  Cherokee  disturbance,  or  the 
Florida  war  with  the  Seminole  Indians  must  be  rendered  in 
one  of  the  wars  therein  expressly  named.  No  other  or  different 
military  service,  even  though  rendered  in  the  United  States 
Army  during  the  period  named  in  said  act,  would  be  a  pension- 
able service. 

Service — Act  July  27^  1892 — Sabine  Indian  war.     (R.  G.  English, 
11  P.  D.,  177.) 

The  Sabine  Indian  war  not  being  one  of  the  wars  named  in 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  467 

the  act  of  July  27,  1892,  the  soldiers  who  served  therein  are  not 
entitled  to  pension  under  said  act. 

Service — Acts  June  27^  1902^  and  July  27\  1892 — Indian  wars — 
Limitations.     (Lewis  Lawley,  14  P.  D.,  13.) 

The  act  of  June  27,  1902,  extending  the  provisions,  limitations, 
and  benefits  of  the  act  of  July  27,  1892,  does  not  limit  its  bene- 
fits to  those  who  served  and  were  discharged  under  the  immedi- 
ate military  authority  of  the  United  States  only,  but  to  those 
who  served  and  were  discharged  under  State,  Territorial,  or 
provisional  authority  as  well. 

Service  acts  of  July  27.,  1892^  and  June  27^  1902 — Indian  wars. 
(John  L.  Johnson,  14  P.  D.,  296.) 

"  The  act  of  June  27,  1902,  extending  the  provisions,  limita- 
tions, and  benefits  of  the  act  of  July  27,  1892,  does  not  limit  its 
benefits  to  those  who  served  and  were  discharged  under  the  imme- 
diate military  authority  of  the  United  States  only,  but  to  those 
who  served  and  were  discharged  under  State,  territorial,  or  pro- 
visional authority  as  well."  (See  case  of  Lewis  Lawley,  14  P.  D., 
13.) 

Held:  That  for  pensionable  purposes  the  roll  on  file  in  the 
Office  of  the  Auditor  for  the  War  Department,  showing  the 
date  and  place  of  muster  in  and  muster  out,  and  that  claimant 
served  more  than  thirty  days,  is  sufficient  evidence  of  service  to 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  within  the  meaning  of 
the  terms  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1902. 

Service — Record — Evidence — Act  of  June  27.,  1902.  (Samuel  T. 
Curtis,  14  P.  D.,  298.) 

There  is  no  record  evidence  to  show  that  the  claimant  ever 
rendered  the  service  alleged,  or  that  he  was  paid  for  such  service 
by  the  United  States.  Hence  the  Department  is  without  author- 
ity to  grant  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1902. 

Service — Indian  wars — Act  July  27.,  1892 — Evidence.  (Margaret 
A.  Davis,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  408.) 

The  evidence  showing  that  soldier  was  paid  for  one  month 
and  twenty-nine  days'  service,  including  twenty-nine  days'  travel 
pay,  he  is  held  to  have  been  in  the  service  of  the  United  States 
for  thirty  days  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  July  27,  1892. 

Service— Act  of  June  27,  1902— Act  of  Jidy  27,  1892— Declara- 
tions— Cherokee  disturbance.  (Mary  A.  Elliott,  widow,  15  P.  D., 
23.) 

A  declaration  for  widow's  pension  under  the  act  of  July  27, 
1892,  alleging  service  in  some  of  the  wars  or  disturbances  speci- 
fied in  that  act,  and  otherwise  valid  except  for  a  misallegation 
as  to  the  organization  in  which  such  service  was  rendered,  is  not 
invalid  because  of  such  misallegation. 


468  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Service  in  the  Cherokee  disturbances  in  1838  is  not  pensionable 
under  the  act  of  June  27,  1902,  but  only  under  the  act  of  July. 
27,  1892. 

Service  in  a  State  organization  which  was  not  mustered  into 
the  service  or  paid  by  the  United  States  is  not  pensionable 
service  under  the  act  of  July  27,  1892,  although  the  State  may 
have  subsequently,  under  a  special  act  of  Congress,  been  reim- 
bursed by  the  United  States  for  the  expenses  to  said  State  of 
such  service. 
Service — Indian  wars — Evidence — Record.  (Lenetta  A.  Daugh- 
trey,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  44.) 

The  record  shows  service  in  the  Cherokee  war  from  May  21 
to  June  10, 1836,  and  two  days'  service  in  the  Sabine  disturbances. 

Held :  Insufficient  length  of  service  to  give  the  wddow  title. 

The  Government  record  as  to  length  of  service  is  the  best  evi- 
dence of  such  fact,  and  parol  testimony  is  wholly  inadmissible 
to  controvert  such  record  except  for  the  purpose  of  proving 
fraud  or  mistake. 

The  opinions  in  the  cases  of  Swann  (8  P.  D.,  149)  and  Davis 
(14  P.  D.,  408)   are  hereby  expressly  overruled  so  far  as  they 
conflict  with  this  present  opinion. 
Service — Indian  wars — Act  of  June  27^  1902 — Record.     (Charles 
Bolds,  or  Bowles,  15  P.  D.,  51.) 

The  Department  can  see  and  define  but  two  conditions  which 
confer  a  pensionable  status  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1902 :  First. 
A  record  showing  that  the  soldier  was  regularly  mustered  in, 
served  thirty  days  or  more,  and  was  honorably  discharged  under 
the  United  States  military.  State,  Territorial,  or  provisional 
authority.  Second.  In  the  absence  of  such  record  of  service,  a 
record  of  pay  to  the  soldier  by  the  United  States  shall  be  deemed 
sufficient  evidence  of  such  service. 
Service — Indian  wars — Act  of  June  27 .^  1902 — Record.  (Agnes 
Trickle,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  50.) 

Claimant  is  not  entitled  to  a  pension  under  the  acts  above  re- 
ferred to,  there  being  no  record  that  her  husband  was  ever  regu- 
larly mustered  in,  served  thirty  days  or  more,  and  was  honorably 
discharged  under  the  United  States  military,  Stat«,  Territorial, 
or  provisional  authorities,  or  that  payment  for  like  service  w^as 
ever  made  by  the  United  States.  Action  affirmed. 
Service — Indian  wars — Acts  of  July  27,  1892,  and  June  27,  1902. 
(Alexander  McAlister,  15  P.  D.,  124.) 

Neither  the  act  of  July  27,  1892,  nor  the  act  of  June  27,  1902, 
provides  for  pensioning  survivors  of  any  Indian  war  occurring 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS.  469 

in  California,  except  the  California  Indian  disturbances  of  1851 
and  1852 ;  therefore  claimant's  service,  rendered  in  California  in 
the  year  1856,  is  not  a  pensionable  service  under  said  acts. 
Service— Indian  wars— Act  of  July  27, 1892— Act  of  June  27, 1902. 
(Moses  Gillespie,  15  P.  D.,  130.) 

Service  in  the  Cherokee  disturbance  in  1838  is  not  pensionable 
service  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1902;  and  service  in  said  dis- 
turbance in  Captain  Patterson's  company,  Georgia  Volunteers, 
is  not  pensionable  service  under  the  act  of  July  27,  1892,  because 
said  organization  was  a  State  organization  solely,  and  was  never 
in  the  military  service  of  the  United  States  (widow  of  John 
Elliott,  15  P.  D.,  23). 

The  provision  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1902,  including  service 
under  State,  Territorial,  and  provisional  authorities,  has  no  ap- 
plication to  service  in  the  Avars  specified  in  the  act  of  July  27, 
1892,  but  solely  to  that  in  wars  specified  in  the  former  act. 
Service — Indian  wars — Act  of  July  27,  1892 — Act  of  June  27, 
1902 — Honorable  discharge — Discharge.  (Mary  E.  Conner, 
widow,  15  P.  D.,  201.) 

The  acts  of  July  27,  1892,  and  June  27,  1902,  relating  to  service 
in  Indian  wars  in  respect  to  honorable  discharge,  are  controlled 
by  the  rule  of  construction  in  claims  arising  under  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890. 

An  honorable  discharge  from  each  and  every  term  of  enlist- 
ment in  said  Indian  war  is  a  prerequisite  to  pension  under  the 
provisions  of  the  above-mentioned  acts. 
Service— Indian  wars— Acts  of  July  27,  1892,  and  June  27,  1902. 
(Katharina  Eberlein,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  375.) 

The  service  in  the  Texas  and  New  Mexico  Indian  war,  in 
which  soldier  participated,  was  not  embraced  within  the  period 
named  in  the  acts  of  July  27,  1892,  and  June  27,  1902 ;  therefore 
his  widow  has  no  title  to  pension  thereunder. 
Service — Indian  wars — Florida  war — Act  of  June  27, 1902.  (Mary 
E.  Mitchell,  widow,  15  P.  D.,  394.) 

The  act  of  June  27,  1902,  referring  to  "  the  Florida  wars  with 
the  Seminole  Indians  from  1842  to  1858,  inclusive,"  contemplated 
such  disturbances  and  outbreaks  with  those  Indians  during  that 
period  as  were  so  seriously  imperiling  life  and  property  as  to 
necessitate  the  organized  military  intervention  of  the  United 
States,  State,  Territorial,  or  provisional  authorities,  whether 
such  disturbances  or  outbreaks  technically  constituted  "  wars  " 
or  not. 


470  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

Service — Indian  wars — Cay  use  India7is — Oregon — Act  of  July  ^7, 
1892— Act  of  June  27,  1902—Evidencel  (Thomas  Jefferson 
Gregory,  15  P.  D.,  396.) 

It  appearing  from  a  report  from  the  adjutant-general  of  Ore- 
gon that  claimant  enlisted  in  the  First  Regiment  of  Oregon  Rifle- 
men, in  the  Cayuse  war  of  1847  and  1848,  on  January  28,  1848, 
and  was  mustered  out  April  12,  1848,  and  that  the  commissioner 
appointed  by  the  governor  of  Oregon,  under  act  of  October  31, 
1849,  to  audit  the  claims  growing  out  of  said  war,  in  his  report 
submitted  in  accordance  therewith,  found  there  was  due  said 
claimant  for  such  services  the  sum  of  $122.70,  and  also  from 
testimony  filed  that  he  actually  served  in  said  organization  in 
said  war  during  said  period,  it  is  held  that  under  the  second 
proviso  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1892,  the  proof  shows  that  he  ren- 
dered the  necessary  thirty  days'  service  to  confer  title  under  said 
act,  notwithstanding  there  is  no  record  of  such  service  in  the 
War  Department. 

The  evidence  shows  that  the  claimant  rendered  the  necessary 
thirty  days'  service  to  confer  title  to  a  pension  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  above-named  act. 
4.  In  Mexican  War. 
Service — Mexican  war.     (Helen  M.  Geiger,  widow,  9  P.  D.,  28.) 

Soldier  enlisted  March  20,  1848;  was  mustered  in  April  30, 
1848,  to  serve  during  the  war  with  Mexico ;  was  forwarded  May 
5,  and  joined  his  company  near  Matamoras,  Mexico,  May  26, 
1848,  and  he  remained  with  said  company  until  after  July  31, 
1848,  and  was  mustered  out  November  7,  1848.     It  is 

Held:  That  he  actually  served  sixty  days  in  Mexico  and  en 
route  thereto. 
Service — Mexican  war.     (Elizabeth  Young,  widow,  9  P.  D.,  44.) 

The  period  of  time  included  in  the  term  "  en  route  thereto  "  in 
the  act  of  January  29,  1887,  commences  at  the  date  of  soldier's 
enlistment,  w4ien  his  service  in  the  war  with  Mexico  conforms  in 
other  respects  with  the  requirements  of  the  terms  of  said  act,  and 
where  the  soldier  is  not  responsible  or  chargeable  w^ith  delay  in 
finally  reaching  Mexico,  the  coasts  or  frontier  thereof. 
Service — Mexican  war — Gilpin'' s  battalion.  (Martineau  Winters, 
widow,  9  P.  D.,  108.) 

1.  Under  report  of  the  War  Department,  of  date  August  11, 
1897,  the  organization  known  as  Gilpin's  battalion  Missouri  Vol- 
unteers has  service  title  to  pension  under  act  of  January  29,  1887, 
and  therefore  the  widow's  title  follows. 

2.  Departmental  decision  of  August  29,  1896,  in  the  case  of 
Anton  Brunz  (8  P.  D.,  344),  having  been  rendered  under  mis- 
apprehension of  facts,  is  recalled  and  annulled. 


PENSION   AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  471 

Service — Mexican  war.     (Mary  E.  Powers,  widow,  9  P.  D.,  3G9.) 
To  convey  title  to  pension  under  the  act  of  January  29,  1887, 
it  must  be  shown  that  the  soldier's  military  service  was  asso- 
ciated with  the  war  with  Mexico. 

Service — Act  January  29^  1887 — Mexican  war.     (Lany  Bouday, 
widow,  10  P.  D.,  139.) 

A  soldier  who  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Army  April  7,  1848,  and 
was  assigned  to  a  battery  which  left  Fort  Columbus,  N.  Y.,  for 
Vera  Cruz,  Mexico,  May  11, 1848,  where  he  arrived  May  31,  1848, 
one  day  after  the  termination  of  the  war,  and  was  ordered  from 
Vera  Cruz  to  New  Orleans  June  4,  1848,  where  he  arrived  June 
17,  1848,  and  thence  to  Governors  Island,  N.  Y.,  July  15,  1848, 
did  not  actually  serve  sixty  days  in  Mexico,  or  on  the  coasts  or 
frontier  thereof,  or  en  route  thereto,  and  his  widow  is  not  entitled 
to  a  pension  under  the  act  of  January  29,  1887. 

Case  distinguished  from  that  of  Elizabeth  Young  (9  P.  D., 
44). 

Service  in  Mexican  war — Act  January  29,  1887.     (Mary  F.  Mor- 
rison, widow,  10  P.  D.,  425.) 

It  appearing  from  the  official  record  of  the  military  service  of 
the  deceased  soldier  during  the  Mexican  war  that  he  was  not  in 
the  military  service  of  the  United  States  for  sixty  days  during 
said  war,  and  did  not  serve  for  sixty  days  with  the  Army  of  the 
United  States  in  Mexico,  or  on  the  coasts  or  frontier  thereof, 
or  en  route  thereto  during  said  war,  this  appellant  has  no  title 
to  pension  as  his  widow  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  Jan- 
uary 29,  1887. 

Service — Mexican  war.  (Meta  Thornton,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  21.) 
It  appearing  from  the  official  record  of  the  military  service  of 
the  deceased  soldier  during  the  Mexican  war,  and  from  the  tes- 
timony on  file  in  this  case,  that  the  soldier  was  duly  enlisted  for 
service  in  the  war  with  Mexico  as  a  recruit  for  a  regiment  then 
on  duty  in  Mexico,  and  that  he  served  for  a  term  of  more  than 
sixty  days  under  orders  and  "  en  route  "  to  the  seat  of  war  to 
join  his  command,  such  service  fulfilled  the  conditions  of  pen- 
sionable title  required  by  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  January 
29,  1887,  and  entitles  his  widow  to  pension  thereunder. 

Service — Mexican  war — Act  January  29,  1900.     (Matilda  I.  Ken- 
nedy, widow,  11  P.  D.,  110.) 

It  appearing  from  the  evidence  that  the  deceased  sailor  did  not 
serve  for  sixty  days  with  the  Navy  of  the  United  States  in 
Mexico,  or  on  the  coasts  or  frontier  thereof,  or  en  route  thereto 
in  the  war  with  that  nation,  this  appellant  is  not  entitled  to  pen- 
sion as  his  widow  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  January  29, 
1887. 


472  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Service — War  with  Mexico — Act  January  29^  1887.     (Alfred  Wil- 
liams, 11  P.  D.,  103.) 

This  soldier  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Arm}^  of  the  United  States 
on  April  22,  1848,  less  than  sixty  days  prior  to  the  termination 
of  the  war  with  Mexico,  on  May  30,  1848.  Consequently  his 
service  during  said  war  did  not  fulfill  the  requirements  of  the  act 
of  January  29,  1887,  and  he  is  not  entitled  to  pension  thereunder. 
Service — Mexican  war — Act  January  29,  J 887.  (Thomas  McGin- 
niss,  11  P.  D.,  218.) 

The  mere  fact  that  claimant  served  as  a  sailor  during  the  war 
with  Mexico  is  not  enough  to  entitle  him  to  a  pension  under  the 
act  of  January  29,  1887,  but  he  must  have  served  sixty  days  in 
Mexico,  on  the  coasts  or  frontier  thereof,  or  en  route  thereto, 
or  actually  engaged  in  battle,  or  been  personally  named  by  a 
resolution  of  Congress  for  specific  service  rendered  therein. 
Service — War  with  Mexico — Teamster — Act  of  January  29, 1887 — 
Evidence.     (Allen  J.  Patrick,  14  P.  D.,  357.) 

There  is  no  evidence,  aside  from  the  claimant's  statements,  that 
he  rendered  any  service  as  an  enlisted  man  in  the  Army  of  the 
United  States  during  the  war  with  Mexico.  His  service  was  as  a 
teamster  in  the  Quartermaster's  Department,  which  is  not  a  pen- 
sionable service  under  the  act  of  January  29,  1887. 
Service — Mexican  war — Dropping — Restoration — Act  of  January 
29,  1887— Act  of  January  5,  1893.  (John  R.  Owen,  15  P.  D., 
158.) 

The  records  of  the  War  Department  show  that  this  soldier's 
service  was  less  than  sixty  days  during  the  war  with  Mexico,  and 
that  neither  he  nor  his  regiment  was  ever  in  Mexico,  or  on  the 
coasts  or  frontier  thereof,  or  en  route  thereto.  He  was  erro- 
neously pensioned,  and  is  not  entitled  to  restoration. 
Service — War  with  Mexico — Act  of  January  29, 1887.  (George  W. 
Hale,  15  P.  D.,  544.) 

Appellant  enlisted  for  service  in  the  United  States  Army  dur- 
ing the  war  with  Mexico  and  was  assigned  to  a  company  then 
stationed  at  Fort  Scott,  Mo.,  where  he  remained  with  said  com- 
pany until  the  close  of  said  war. 

Held:  That  he  did  not  serve  for  sixty  days  in  the  Army  or 
Navy  of  the  United  States  in  Mexico  or  on  the  coast  or  frontier 
thereof,  or  en  route  thereto,  as  contemplated  by  the  act  of  Jan- 
uary 29,  1887. 

5.  In  War  of  the  Rebellion. 

Service — War  of  the  rebellion — Act  June  27,  1890'.     (Charles  E. 
Shinguin,  9  P.  D.,  119.) 

1.  Pensioner's  service,  extending  from  December  5,  1805,  to 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  473 

December  5,  1868,  is  not  shown  to  have  had  any  connection  with 
the  war  of  the  rebellion,  and  he  can  not,  therefore,  be  held  to  have 
served  in  or  during  said  war,  and  is  not  pensionable  under  the 
second  section  of  said  act.  The  dropping  of  his  name  from  the 
rolls  was  proper. 

2.  This  holding  is  in  accordance  wdth  the  decisions  in  the  cases 
of  Barleyoung  and  Edward  Farrell  et  al.  (7  P.  D.,  453  and  532), 
which  are  indorsed  as  being  sustained  by  the  law. 
Service — War  of  the  rehellion.     (Ida  E.  Filler,  widow,  9  P.  D., 
12G.) 

Soldier's  service  for  ninety  days  or  more  in  the  Eegular  Army 
subsequent  to  November  23,  1865,  under  an  enlistment  on  that 
date,  is  not  service  for  ninety  days  in  the  war  of  the  rebellion  as 
contemplated  in  the  act  of  June  27,  1890.  (Cases  of  Barleyoung 
and  Farrell,  7  P.  D.,  453  and  532,  cited.) 
Service— Act  June  27, 1890.     (Henry  Boedeker,  9  P.  D.,  207.) 

Soldier  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Army  December  9,  1865,  and 
was  discharged  December  9,  1868.  He  was  stationed  at  Harts 
Island,  New  York  Harbor,  from  December  14,  1865,  to  April, 
1866,  and  at  Camp  Wright,  near  Galveston,  Tex.,  from  April, 
1866,  to  May,  1866,  and  at  Richmond,  Tex.,  from  May,  1866,  to 
August  20,  1866. 

Held:  That  his  enlistment  and  service  were  not  in  or  for  the 
"  war  of  the  rebellion  "  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890.  (See  Edward  Farrell  et  al.,  7  P.  D.,  532;  John  Barle- 
young, 7  P.  D.,  453;  Jeremiah  Butler,  7  P.  D.,  214.) 

6.  In  Beaty's  Independent  Scouts. 

Service — Special  act — Act  of  June  27,  1890.     (James  Threet,  9  P. 
D.,297.) 

The  members  of  Captain  Beaty's  Company  of  Independent 
Scouts,  never  ha^dng  been  legally  mustered  into  the  United 
States  service,  are  not  pensionable  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
notwithstanding  the  act  of  July  14,  1870,  recognizing  said  or- 
ganization as  a  part  of  the  military  force  of  the  United  States, 
and  granting  them  pay  and  pension  on  making  proof  of  actual 
service. 

Service — Act    of    June    27,    1890 — Beat\fs    Independent    Scouts. 
(Russell  Stevens,  11  P.  D.,  141.) 

The  act  of  July  14,  1870,  for  the  relief  of  Captain  Beaty's 
Company  of  Independent  Scouts  was  manifestly  passed  to  enable 
deserving  members  thereof  to  obtain  the  benefit  of  pension  law^s 
then  in  force  for  disabilities  incurred  in  the  service  and  line  of 
duty,  and  its  scope  can  not  be  broadened  to  include  the  essentially 
different  conditions  of  title  to  pension  contemplated  by  the  act 


474  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

of  June  27,  1890,  and  claimant  never  having  been  legally  mus- 
tered into  the  United  States  service  and  honorably  discharged 
therefrom  is  not  pensionable  under  said  last-mentioned  act. 
(Citing  case  of  James  Threet,  9  P.  D.,  297.) 

7.  Civilian  Employees. 
Seroice — Civilian  employees.     (E.  S.  Leonard,  9  P.  D.,  194.) 

Appellant  claims  pension  for  disability  alleged  to  have  been 
contracted  while  performing  service  as  contract  surgeon  in  con- 
nection with  the  recruiting  service  of  the  Twenty-seventh  Michi- 
gan Volunteers. 

Held :  That  as  his  service  was  as  a  resident  private  physician, 
and  not  rendered  with  any  military  force  in  the  field,  in  transitu, 
nor  in  hospital,  it  was  not  such  service  as  entitles  him  to  pension 
under  the  fourth  subdivision  of  section  4693  of  the  Revised 
Statutes. 
Service — Drafted  man — Civilian  employee.  (Basil  T.  Ridgeway, 
9  P.  D.,  300.) 

It  appearing  that  this  appellant  was  drafted  and  accepted  but 
not  held  to  military  service  under  said  draft,  and  detailed  and 
employed  as  a  mechanic  in  the  Washington  Navy- Yard  at  regu- 
lar wages  during  the  w^hole  time  of  his  service,  he  is  held  by  the 
authorities  of  the  War  Department  not  to  have  been  in  the  mili- 
tary service  of  the  United  States,  and  not  entitled  to  recognition 
as  a  soldier  for  any  purpose,  and  is  therefore  not  entitled  to 
pension  under  any  existing  law. 
Service — Civilian  employees — Act  of  June  27 .^  1890 — Pilot.  (Anna 
M.  Whalen,  widow,  9  P.  D.,  346.) 

The  widow  of  a  pilot  is  not  pensionable  under  the  act  of  June 

27,  1890,  as  he  was  not  an  officer  or  an  enlisted  man  in  the  Army 

,  or  Navy  of  the  United  States.     (Susannah,  widow  of  Francis 

Mackey,  8  P.  D.,  535.) 
Service — Civilian  employees — Act  of  January  29^  1887.     (Henry 
Barlow,  9  P.  D.,  347.) 

The  record  of  claimant's  grant  of  bounty-land  w^arrant  shows 
he  was  a  civil  employee  merely,  and  not  an  enlisted  man.     Claim 
for  pension  was,  therefore,  properly  rejected. 
Service — Civilian  employees — Pilot.     (William  B.  Taylor,  9  P.  D., 
360.) 

A  pilot  is  not  an  officer  or  enlisted  man  in  the  Army  or  Navy, 
and  he  is  not  entitled  to  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 
Service — Civilian  employee — Act  June  27^  1890.     (John  Laughlin, 
9  P.  D.,  466.) 

1.  The  words  "  all  persons  "  in  section  2  of  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  are  limited  by  the  context  to  those  persons  who  have  been 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  476 

"  honorably  discharged  "  from  "  the  luilitary  or  naval  service  of 
the  United  States  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion,"  and  do  not 
include  a  person  who  served  in  the  capacity  of  a  civilian  em- 
ployee or  as  a  nonenlisted  person. 

2.  The  record  evidence  in  this  case  shows  that  the  claimant 
was  a  civilian  employee  and  nonenlisted  person  of  the  Quarter- 
master's Department. 

Service — Civilian    employees — Contract    surgeons.      (Harvey    E. 
Bowles,  10  P.  D.,  183.) 

An  acting  assistant  or  contract  surgeon  is  not  pensionable 
under  section  2  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Service — Enlistment — Civilian    employees — Desertion.     (John    S. 
Williams,  10  P.  D.,1G9.) 

1.  The  legal  status  of  a  man  who  becomes  a  voluntary  substi- 
tute for  a  soldier,  and  serves  and  is  discharged  in  the  name  of  the 
soldier,  is  that  of  a  civilian,  as  he  was  never  enlisted  or  mustered 
into  the  military  service  of  the  United  States.  (Christian,  alias 
Ernest  Ulrich,  4  P.  D.,  411;  Henry  Bell,  5  P.  D.,  19G;  Mary 
Brady,  9  P.  D.,  305.) 

2.  A  civilian  who  served  with  the  Army  or  Navy  has  no  pen- 
sionable status  under  section  2  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 
(John  Laughlin,  9  P.  D.,  460.) 

3.  The  time  lost  by  desertion,  where  the  deserter  returned  to 
his  organization  and  was  pardoned  under  the  President's  proc- 
lamation of  March  11,  18G5  (13  Stat.  L.,  752),  is  excluded  in 
estimating  the  length  of  service  required  under  section  2  of  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890. 

4.  The  evidence  in  this  case  shows  that  claimant  is  entitled  to 
a  credit  of  but  one  month  and  six  days'  service  in  the  late  war  of 
the  rebellion,  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  which  requires 
ninety  days'  service  to  entitle  a  soldier  to  a  pension. 

Service — Civilian  employee — Pilot.     (John  H.  Meeker,  10  P.  D., 
182.) 

1.  Service  as  pilot  does  not  bring  a  claimant  within  the  class 
of  persons  entitled  to  pension  under  the  provisions  of  section  2 
of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

2.  The  words  "  all  persons  "  in  said  section  are  limited  by  the 
context  to  those  persons  "  who  served  ninety  days  or  more  in  the 
military  or  naval  service  of  the  United  States  during  the  late 
war  of  the  rebellion  and  who  have  been  honorably  discharged 
therefrom,"  and  do  not  include  a  person  who  served  in  the 
capacity  of  a  civilian  employee  or  nonenlisted  person. 


476  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

(See  cases  of  Angelina  Coney,  7  P.  D.,  390;  Anna  M.  Whalan, 
9  P.  D.,  346 ;  John  Laughlin,  ibid.,  466 ;  Henry  N.  Haynie,  ibid., 
304.) 
Service-  Masters  and  mates — Civilian  eTnployees — Western  gun- 
boat flotilla— Act  of  June  27,  1890.  (Richard  H.  Cutter,  15  P. 
D.,  366.) 

Claimant  was  not  an  enlisted  man  or  officer  in  the  military  or 
naval  service  of  the  United  States,  and  is  therefore  not  pension- 
able under  the  provisions  of  section  2  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 
8.  Drafted  Men  and  Substitutes. 

Service — Drafted  man  and  substitute,     (Wright  Sims,  9  P.  D., 
158.) 

Claimant,  a  drafted  man  who  had  furnished  a  substitute  who 
was  examined  and  accepted  into  the  service  by  a  board  of  en- 
rollment October  29,  1864,  was  injured  in  a  railroad  accident 
October  31,  1864,  and  contends  that  at  the  time  of  his  injury  he 
was  acting  under  military  orders  to  proceed  from  his  home,  where 
he  had  been  permitted  to  go,  to  Lafayette,  Ind.,  and  was  there- 
fore in  the  line  of  duty  in  the  service. 

Held :  That  as  he  had  furnished  a  substitute  who  had  been  ac- 
cepted into  the  service  in  his  stead  two  days  prior  to  said  accident 
claimant  was  no  longer  in  the  service  of  the  United  States,  but 
when  injured  was  a  civilian. 
Service — Drafted  man  and  substitute — Discharge,  (Nancy  Rath- 
ton,  widow,  9  P.  D.,  162.) 

Soldier  enlisted  October  15,  1864;  was  accepted  by  the  board 
of  enrollment  of  the  Eighth  Congressional  district  of  Indiana 
on  the  same  day  as  a  substitute.  He  was  examined  by  a  board 
of  inspectors  November  7,  1864,  and  rejected.  He  was  fur- 
loughed  to  await  discharge  and  was  discharged  April  1,  1865, 
on  a  surgeon's  certificate  because  of  "  deficient  amplitude  and  ex- 
pansive mobility  of  chest;  said  disqualification  existed  at  date 
of  enlistment."  He  was  never  assigned  to  any  military  organi- 
zation, nor  ordered  on  detached  service,  nor  is  it  shown  that  he 
ever  performed  any  active  military  service. 

Held:  That  soldier  did  not  serve  ninety  days  in  the  war  of  the 
rebellion,  or  in  the  Army  of  the  United  States,  within  the  mean- 
ing of  sections  2  and  3  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890.  (See  case  of 
Albert  K.  Ransom,  5  P.  D.,  183.) 
Service — Drafted  man— Discharge.  (Obediah  P.  Hankinson,  9 
P.  D.,  292.) 

The  official  military  record  of  this  appellant's  service  during 
the  war  of  the  rebellion  shows  that  he  did  not  render  any  pen- 
sionable service  whatever  in  the  Army  of  the  United  States  dur- 
ing said  war. 


PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  477 

Service — Substitute — E7ilistme7it.     (Mary  Brady,  widow,  9  P.  D., 
305.) 

It  appearing  from  the  evidence  that  the  deceased  husband  of 
this  appellant  served  in  the  above-named  organization  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  and  under  the  name  of  one  Thomas  F.  Jessup,  who 
had  been  drafted  into  the  service,  and  by  a  private  arrangement 
with  Jessup  took  his  place  in  the  ranks  and  answered  to  his  name, 
but  was  not  sworn  in,  nor  mustered  into  the  military  service,  he 
was  not  in  the  militar}^  service  of  the  United  States,  his  service 
was  not  a  pensionable  service,  and  would  not  entitle  his  widow 
to  pension  under  any  existing  law.  (Christian,  alias  Ernest 
Ulrich,  4  P.  D.,  411.) 
Service — Drafted  man  and  substitute — Discharge — Act  of  June  27^ 
1890.     (William  H.  Veach,  12  P.  D.,  273.) 

Appellant  was  enrolled  and  accepted  as  a  substitute  September 
27,  1864,  rejected  by  board  of  medical  inspectors  November  17, 
1864,  ordered  by  Major-General  Hooker  to  be  discharged  No- 
vember 28,  1864,  and  was  discharged  March  15,  1865,  on  account 
of  disability  existing  at  time  of  enrollment. 

Held:  1.  That  the  status  of  appellant  from  the  time  of  his 
acceptance  by  the  board  of  enrollment,  September  27,  1864,  to 
the  time  of  his  discharge,  March  15,  1865,  for  disability  existing 
at  the  time  of  enlistment,  was  that  of  a  soldier  accepted  into  the 
service  of  the  United  States,  but  not  assigned  to  duty  as  such  for 
the  reason  that  he  w^as  physically  disqualified  to  perform  military 
service  from  causes  existing  at  the  time  he  was  accepted. 

2.  That  as  appellant  was  not  assigned  to  any  military  organiza- 
tion nor  to  military  duty,  he  did  not  render  to  the  United  States 
any  military  service,  and  hence  did  not  serve  for  ninety  days  in 
the  military  or  naval  service  of  the  United  States,  as  contem- 
plated by  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  and  is  not  pensionable  under 
section  2  of  said  act. 
Service — Drafted  man — Evidence — Act  of  June  27^  1890.  (Cathe- 
rine Parcell,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  63.) 

It  appearing  from  a  report  from  the  Auditor  of  the  Treasury 
for  the  War  Department,  filed  since  this  case  was  previously 
decided,  that  claimant's  husband  was  drafted  June  8,  1864,  failed 
to  report,  was  arrested  September  12,  1864,  and  examined  Octo- 
ber 10,  1864,  and  rejected,  it  is  held  that  he  did  not  serve  ninety 
days  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

The  former  decision  in  this  case,  reported  in  13  P.  D.,  450, 
based  on  the  evidence  then  in  the  case  (the  Chief  of  the  Kecord 
and  Pension  Office  having  declined  to  furnish  the  above  facts), 
is  overruled. 


478  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Service — Drafted  man — Commencement  of  service — Act  of  June 
27, 1890.     (Charles  A.  Eaton,  15  P.  D.,  232.) 

So  far  as  service  is  concerned  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
in  the  case  of  an  accepted  drafted  man,  it  is  to  be  deemed  to  have 
commenced  from  the  date  his  name  was  drawn  in  the  draft. 

9.  In  Home  Guards. 

Service — Home  guards.     (Abner  Robinson,  9  P.  D.,  362.) 

Hall's  company.  West  Virginia  Home  Guards,  to  which  this 
appellant  belonged,  and  in  which  he  alleges  his  military  service 
was  rendered  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  was  a  State  militia 
organization  that  was  never  in  the  military  service  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  officers  and  enlisted  men  thereof  are  not  pension- 
able under  any  existing  law. 

10.  In  the  Militia.  . 
Service— Militia— Act  of  June  27, 1890.    (William  Bice,  9  P.  D.,  21.) 

1.  Pennsylvania  Emergency  Militia,  while  serving  in  the 
Army  of  the  United  States,  under  command  of  United  States 
officers,  in  response  to  the  call  of  the  President,  were  a  part  of 
that  Army  while  so  serving,  and  are,  for  that  time  and  as  regards 
the  character  of  the  service,  brought  within  the  scope  of  the 
first  subdivision  of  section  4693,  Revised  Statutes,  and  the  act 
of  June  27,  1890,  for  pensionable  purposes,  other  conditions  of 
those  laws  having  been  met. 

2.  The  peculiar  conditions  under  which  said  militia  were 
recognized  as  a  part  of  the  Army,  the  manner  in  which  received 
into  and  released  from  the  service  of  the  United  States,  obviated 
the  necessity  of  enlistment  and  discharge  in  the  usual  manner, 
the  records  of  the  State  in  that  respect  being  taken  as  a  substitute 
for  the  records  of  the  AVar  Department,  and  the  period  of  actual 
service  being  counted  as  if  rendered  under  enlistment  by  United 
States  officers. 

3.  Two  terms  of  service,  each  less  than  ninety  days,  may  be 
added  together  to  make  the  required  period  under  said  act  of 
June  27,  1890. 

Service — Militia.     (James  W.  Anderson,  9  P.  D.,  422.) 

A  State  militiaman,  whose  organization  was  not  called  into 
the  United  States  service  by  the  President,  is  pensionable  only 
under  subdivision  three  of  section  4693,  Revised  Statutes,  where 
his  claim  was  prosecuted  to  a  successful  issue  prior  to  July  4, 
1874,  notwithstanding  he  performed  duty  under  the  commander 
of  the  Department  of  Kansas. 

Service— Militia.     (Walter  Morris,  9  P.  D.,  462.) 

The  fact  that  the  organization  to  which  the  claimant  belonged 
was  not  regularly  mustered  into  the  service  of  the  United  States 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  479 

does  not  debar  him  from  pension  for  disability  incurred  in  the 
line  of  duty,  it  appearing  that  said  organization  was  called  into 
service  by  the  authority  of  the  President,  turned  over  to  the 
United  States  officers,  and  by  them  ordered  outside  the  State 
for  duty,  and  that  the  members  were  paid  by  the  General  Gov- 
ernment at  the  time  of  muster  out. 

Service — Missouri  Militia — Act  June  ^7,  1890.     (Martha  Patter- 
son, widow,  10  P.  D.,  8.) 

Claimant's  husband  was  a  member  of  the  Missouri  Six  Months' 
Militia,  which  organization  was  never  in  the  United  States 
service,  and  she  has,  therefore,  no  pensionable  status  under  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Service — Missouri  Militia.  (Frederick  Brennecke,  10  P.  D.,  19.) 
The  organization  in  which  the  claimant  served  was  a  purely 
State  organization,  which  does  not  come  within  the  terms  of  the 
joint  resolution  approved  February  15,  1895,  and  w^hose  members 
are  not  entitled  to  pension  under  either  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
or  section  4722  of  the  Revised  Statutes. 

Service — Missouri  Militia — Hawkins  Taylor  Commission,     (Fran- 
cis M.  Davis,  10  P.  D.,  270.) 

The  report  of  the  Hawkins  Taylor  commission  shows  an  actual 
military  service  rendered  to  the  United  States  by  the  claimant 
of  only  forty-five  days. 

The  report  from  the  adjutant-general  of  Missouri,  showing 
an  interval  of  one  hundred  and  two  days  between  date  of  enroll- 
ment and  date  of  disbandment  of  company  is  not  competent 
evidence  as  to  the  "  actual  military  service  rendered  the  United 
States,"  and  no  other  service  can  be  taken  into  account  in  con- 
sidering claims  to  pension  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Service — Militia.     (Instructions,  11  P.  D.,  12.) 

The  decisions  of  the  Department  in  the  cases  of  Randolph  M. 
Manley  (5  P.  D.,  295),  William  Bice  (9  P.  D.,  21),  Walter  Mor- 
ris (9  P.  D.,  462),  and  all  similar  cases,  which  recognize  certain 
militiamen  as  having  been  in  the  service  of  the  United  States, 
should  continue  to  be  accepted  by  the  Bureau  of  Pensions  as 
precedents  under  which  to  adjudicate  pension  claims  of  the  class 
therein  described.     (See  20  Op.  Atty.  Genl.,  322.) 

Service — Missouri  Militia — Act  of  June  ^7,  1890.     (John  P.  Les- 
lie, 12  P.  D.,  367.) 

The  State  militia  organizations  in  which  the  service  of  this 
appellant  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion  was  rendered  were  in 
the  service  of  the  State  of  Missouri  and  were  never  in  the  mili- 
tary service  of  the  United  States,  and  military  service  rendered 
therein  confers  no  title  to  pension  under  the  provisions  of  the 
second  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 


480  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Service — Militia — Section  Jf693  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  (Daniel 
B.  Tyler,  12  P.  D.,  385.) 

Soldier  enlisted  for  three  months  on  April  10,  1861,  in  the 
Sixth  Massachusetts  Volunteers,  and  was  injured  while  serving 
in  said  organization  in  the  riot  in  the  city  of  Baltimore  on  April 
19,  1861,  being  left  in  said  city  by  his  officei*s.  He  w^as  never 
mustered  into  or  out  of  said  service,  and  the  War  Department 
declines  to  issue  a  discharge  in  his  case. 

Held:  He  was  a  member  during  the  period  involved  of  the 
Sixth  Massachusetts  Volunteers,  an  organization  which  Avas  a 
component  part  of  the  Army  of  the  United  States,  said  organi- 
zation having  been  called  into  the  service  of  the  Federal  Army 
by  orders  of  the  President,  lawfully  issued. 

He  was  discharged  by  operation  of  law  from  said  service  when 
his  term  of  engagement  ceased,  or  when  the  war  of  the  rebellion 
ended.  He  has  a  pensionable  status  as  a  militiaman  under  the 
first  subdivision  of  section  4693,  Revised  Statutes.  (U.  S.  v. 
North,  112  U.  S.,  510,  and  Randolph  M.  Manley,  5  P.  D.,  295, 
and  cases  therein  cited.) 

Service — Militia — Muster.  (Sarah  A.  Fowler,  widow,  12  P.  D., 
521.) 

Held:  That  the  soldier's  service  in  the  Pennsylvania  Emer- 
gency Militia  gives  a  pensionable  status,  and  that  the  prior 
soundness  of  the  soldier,  the  incurrence  of  the  disability  alleged 
in  service,  its  existence  at  discharge  and  continuance  until  death 
are  sufficiently  shown  to  sustain  his  claim  for  pension.  The 
said  disability  is  also  shown  to  have  been  a  large  contributing 
factor  in  the  death  cause  of  the  soldier,  the  preponderance  of  the 
evidence  tending  to  show  that  it  was  the  direct  and  sole  cause 
of  death,  and  the  widow  is  entitled  to  a  pension. 
11.  On  Revenue  Cutters. 

Service — Revenue  cutter — Mexican  war.  (William  F.  Rogers,  9 
P.  D.,  96.) 

Under  the  act  of  March  2,  1799  (section  2757,  Revised  Stat- 
utes) ,  the  revenue  cutter  Forward  was  embraced  within  and  con- 
stituted a  part  of  the  naval  establishment  of  the  United  States 
for  more  than  sixty  days  in  the  w^ar  with  Mexico,  and  claimant, 
being  an  officer  on  said  revenue  cutter  and  serving  with  the  Navy 
of  the  United  States  in  Mexico,  or  on  the  coasts  thereof,  during 
the  war  with  that  nation  for  more  than  sixty  days,  and  having 
engaged  in  battle  in  said  war,  he  has  title  to  pension  under  act  of 
January  29,  1887. 

Service — Revenue  cutters — Act  June  27^  1890.  (William  B.  Wat- 
son, 9  P.  D.,  182.) 

1.  A  service  of  ninety  days  or  more  during  the  war  of  the 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  481 

rebellion  in  actual  cooperation  with  the  Navy  under  the  orders 
of  the  President,  and  an  honorable  discharge  from  such  service 
is  sufficient  to  give  the  officers  and  seamen  of  the  United  States 
Revenue-Marine  Service  a  pensionable  status  under  the  provi- 
sions of  section  2,  act  of  June  27,  1890  (Eoger's  appeal,  9  P.  D., 
96). 

2.  The  Departmental  ruling  in  Oliver's  appeal  (7  P.  D.,  597) 
overruled  and  set  aside,  and  the  decision  in  Schaffer's  appeal  (6 
P,  D.,  137)  reaffirmed, 
Service — Revenue  cutters — Act  June  27\  1890.     (William  B.  Wat- 
son, 9  P.  D.,  395.) 

It  appearing  from  the  official  records  and  from  the  testimony 
that  the  United  States  revenue  cutter  Tiger ^  upon  which  this 
appellant  served,  was,  during  the  time  of  his  service  thereon, 
under  orders  by  the  President  to  cooperate  with  the  Navy,  and 
was  stationed  on  Chesapeake  Bay  and  waters  tributary  thereto, 
in  actuaL  and  iictive  cooperation  with  the  naval  forces  of  the 
United  States,  guarding  the  approaches  to  the  national  capital 
and  "  arresting  rebel  depredations  on  American  commerce  and 
transportation  "  in  those  waters,  his  service  on  said  cutter  under 
such  circumstances  for  ninety  days  or  more,  and  an  honorable 
discharge  from  such  service,  are  sufficient  to  meet  the  require- 
ments of  section  2,  act  of  June  27,  1890,  and  give  him  a  pension- 
able status  thereunder  if  other  pensionable  conditions  required 
by  said  section  are  shown  to  exist. 
Service — Revenue  cutters — Cooperation  with  the  Navy.  (Daniel 
M.  Means,  10  P.  D.,  401.) 

The  claimant  served  on  board  the  revenue  cutter  Joe  Lane^ 
which  was  under  orders  of  the  President  to  cooperate  with  the 
Navy,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  said  vessel  was  ever  in  actual 
cooperation  therew^ith. 

12.  As  Pilot. 

Service— Pilot— Act  June  27,  1890.     (Henry  N.  Haynie,  9  P.  D., 
304.) 

Service  as  a  pilot  does  not  entitle  to  pension  under  section  2 
of  the  act  of  June  27, 1890.  (Citing  Susannah,  widow  of  Francis 
Mackey,  8  P.  D.,  535,  and  William  P.  Gordon,  unpublished. 

13.  Unassigned  Recruit. 

Service — Unassig7ied  recruit — Act  June  27,  1890 — Dropping  from 
the  rolls.    (James  T.  Veley,  9  P.  D.,  15.) 

Soldier  was  enrolled  as  a  substitute  November  1,  1864 ;  received 
at  Indiana  rendezvous  November  3,  1864;   examined  by  a  board 
of  inspectors  and  rejected  by  reason  of  extreme  youth  on  Novem- 
13070— OG 31 


482  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

ber  7,  1864,  and  was  furloughed  to  await  discharge  on  the  same 
day.  The  order  for  discharge  was  finall}^  approved  by  the 
general  commanding  the  department  November  30,  1864,  but  the 
certificate  for  discharge  was  dated  March  9,  1865. 

Held:  That  he  was  not  in  the  service  of  the  United  States 
exceeding  thirty  days,  and  his  name  was  properly  dropped  from 
the  rolls  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

14.  Not  Service  in  War. 

Service — Mexican  war,  (Theresa  Bonnaveau,  widow,  9  P.  D., 
507.) 

It  is  shown  by  the  official  military  records  of  the  War  Depart- 
ment that  the  military  service  of  the  deceased  soldier  terminated 
prior  to  the  commencement  of  the  Mexican  war. 

15.  Act  March  25,  1862. 

Service— Act  March  25, 1862.     (Imre  Radwich,  10  P.  D.,  58.) 

This  officer  was  appointed  a  captain  in  Engineer  Corps  of 
United  States  Volunteers.  He  served  more  than  ninety  days  in 
that  capacity  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  received  payment 
therefor,  and  was  honorably  discharged  from  said  service. 

Held:  That  he  comes  within  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  June 
27,  1890,  and  is  entitled  to  pension  thereunder. 

16.  Act  June  27,  1890. 

Service— Act  June  27, 1890.  (Charles  McQuay,  10  P.  D.,  18.)  . 
Claimant's  enlistment  being  on  January  9,  1866,  it  is  incum- 
bent upon  him  to  prove,  before  he  can  be  accorded  a  status  under 
the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  that  his  service  w^as  in  aiding  the  sup- 
pression of  the  forces  of  the  Confederate  army  or  navy.  (Fol- 
lowing the  holdings  in  the  cases  of  John  Barleyoung,  7  P.  D., 
453,  and  Edward  Farrell  et  al.,  7  P.  D.,  532.) 

Service— Act  of  June  21, 1890.  (John  G.  Mulick,  12  P.  D.,  186.) 
Appellant  enlisted  April  6, 1865,  and  served  as  landsman  in  the 
United  States  Navy  until  April  5,  1868,  wdien  he  was  honorably 
discharged,  and  under  the  circumstances  in  this  case  he  is  re- 
garded as  having  served  in  the  United  States  Navy  for  a  period 
of  ninety  days  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion. 

Service — Desertion — Act  of  June  27,  1890.  (Henry  Denny,  12 
P.  D.,  226.) 

The  claimant  did  not  serve  ninety  days  during  the  war  of  the 
rebellion. 

The  Government  will  not  credit  time  spent  in  desertion  in  es- 
timating length  of  service  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  483 

Service— Act  June  27,  1890— Discharge.  (Edgar  G.  Smith,  12 
P.  D.,  466.) 

Claimant  was  drafted  on  October  8,  1864,  and  rejected  on  De- 
cember 12  next  thereafter.  He  was  furloughed  to  await  dis- 
charge on  December  19,  1864,  and  finally  discharged  on  April 
4,  1865.  The  certificate  w^as  afterwards  amended  so  as  to  take 
eifect  from  December  19,  1864,  by  reason  of  his  being  a  rejected 
recruit.  He  was  never  assigned  to  any  organization  or  placed 
on  military  duty. 

Held:  That  under  these  facts  he  is  not  pensionable  under  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890,  not  having  served  for  ninety  days  or  more 
in  the  military  or  naval  service  of  the  United  States. 

17.  Muster  Out  to  Receive  Commission. 

Service — Muster  out  to  accept  new  commission.  (Helen  A.  M. 
Taylor,  widow,  10  P.  D.,  188.) 

The  claimant's  husband  having  been  discharged  from  the 
service  as  surgeon  of  the  Second  Ohio  Cavalry,  for  the  purpose 
of  enabling  him  to  accept  an  appointment  from  the  governor  of 
Ohio  as  surgeon  of  the  Eighty-ninth  Ohio  Infantry,  and  having 
been  drowned  while  on  his  way  to  join  the  latter  regiment  and 
before  being  mustered  in,  it  is  held  that  he  was  not  in  the  mili- 
tary service  of  the  United  States  at  the  time  of  his  death  and  that 
his  widow  is  not  entitled  to  pension  under  existing  laws. 

18.  As  Substitute. 

Service — Act  June  '27,  1890 — Rejected  recruit.  (John  S.  Robin- 
son, 11  P.  D.,  390.) 

Claimant  was  enlisted  as  a  substitute  in  the  service  of  the 
United  States  and  was  carried  on  the  rolls  as  such  for  a  period 
of  more  than  ninety  days,  when  he  was  discharged  as  rejected 
for  disability  by  a  board  of  inspection.  He  was  not  assigned  to 
any  company,  and  he  did  not  serve  in  the  military  service  in  the 
sense  contemplated  by  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  and  is  not  en- 
titled to  pension.  (See  cases  of  Rathton,  9  P.  D.,  162,  and  Ran- 
som, 5  P  D.,  183.) 
Service — Civilians — Substitute.  (Fred  Pain,  alias  Henry  Fore- 
man, 12  P.  D.,  351.) 

The  legal  status  of  a  man  who  becomes  a  voluntary  substitute 
for  a  soldier  and  serves  and  is  discharged  in  the  name  of  the  sol- 
dier is  that  of  a  civilian,  he  having  never  enlisted  or  been  mus- 
tered into  the  military  service  of  the  United  States.  (John  S. 
Williams,  10  P.  D.,  169.) 

A  civilian  who  served  in  the  Army  or  Navy  has  no  pensionable 
status  under  section  2  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  or  May  9, 
1900.     (John  Laughlin,  9  P.  D.,  466.) 


484  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

The  words  "  all  persons  "  in  said  section  2  are  limited  by  the 
context  to  those  persons  "  who  served  ninety  days  or  more  in  the 
military  or  naval  service  of  the  United  States,"  and  do  not  in- 
clude a  person  who  served  in  the  capacit}^  of  a  civilian  or  non- 
enlisted  person.     (John  H.  Meeker,  10  P.  D.,  182.) 

19.  Enrollment  and  Muster  as  Wagon  Master. 

Service — Wago7i  master — Cluster.      (Margaret  Griffin,  widow,  11 
P.  D.,  282.) 

It  appearing  from  the  official  record  in  the  War  Department 
of  the  deceased  soldier's  military  service  that  he  was  duly  en- 
listed and  mustered  into  the  military  service  of  the  United 
States,  and  subsequently  honorably  discharged  therefrom,  it  is 
immaterial  whether  he  was  enlisted  and  served  as  a  "  wagon 
master  "  or  not ;  he  was  an  enlisted  man  in  the  military  service 
of  the  United  States,  and  as  such  occupied  a  pensionable  status 
under  the  law.  The  rejection  of  the  appellant's  claims  for  pen- 
sion as  the  widow  of  the  soldier  upon  the  ground  that  he  had 
rendered  no  service  in  the  military  or  naval  service  of  the  United 
States  was  therefore  erroneous,  and  is  reversed.   . 

20.  Enlistment. 

Service — Enlistment — Muster — Section  4693^  Revised  Statutes,  and 
act  June  27, 1890.    (Jefferson  M.  Human,  12  P.  D.,  500.) 

A  soldier  may  be  pensionable  for  disability  incurred  prior  to 
the  date  of  his  muster  into  the  service  of  the  United  States, 
muster  in  not  being  an  essential  to  a  pensionable  status.  (Sec. 
4693,  E.  S.) 

The  Department  declines  to  alter  or  modify  the  prevailing 
practice  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  so  far  as  the  dates  of 
enlistment  and  muster  in  affect  the  length  of  service  in  a  claim 
under  said  act. 
Service — Enlistment — Muster — Recruit.  (Samuel  Whiteherse,  13 
P.  D.,  41.) 

Claimant,  while  receiving  a  pension  of  $2  per  month  under  the 
general  law,  was  dropped  from  the  rolls  February  18,  1895,  on 
the  ground  that  the  records  of  the  War  Department  fail  to  show 
he  was  ever  in  the  service  of  the  United  States. 

The  records  of  the  War  Department  show  he  was  discharged 
the  service  as  an  unassigned  recruit  of  the  Thirty-third  Regiment 
Ohio  Volunteer  Infantry  upon  a  certificate  of  disability  for  dis- 
charge from  the  General  Hospital  at  Camp  Denison,  Ohio,  which 
recited,  among  other  things,  that  he  was  enlisted  in  the  service 
to  serve  for  three  years,  the  certificate  being  in  due  form.  They 
also  show  that  he  received  pay  upon  his  final  statement  at  dis- 
charge for  a  period  of  two  months  and  seventeen  days. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  485 

Held:  That  the  records  of  the  War  Department  sufficiently 

show  claimant  was  in  the  military  service  of  the  United  States, 

has  a  pensionable  status,  and  is  entitled  to  be  restored  to  the  rolls. 

Service  —  Enlistment  —  Muster  —  Discharge  —  Record.      ( Graham 

Thorn,  14  P.  D.,  249.) 

Claimant  was  pensioned  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  but  his 
name  was  dropped  from  the  roll  on  November  9,  1901,  on  the 
ground  that  he  was  a  rejected  recruit  and,  therefore,  not  in  the 
United  States  service  as  an  enlisted  man.  Restoration  to  the 
rolls  was  refused  on  the  ground  that  the  records  of  the  War 
Department  show  that  claimant  was  not  in  the  service  of  the 
United  States. 

The  records  and  the  evidence  taken  on  special  examination 
show  that  he  was  in  the  service  of  the  United  States  more  than 
ninety  days,  having  been  enlisted  June  13,  1862,  and  discharged 
to  date  from  December  18,  1862. 

21.  Section  4701,  Revised  Statutes,  and  Act  June  27,  1890. 

Service — Section  Jf701  of  the  Revised  Statutes  and  act  of  June  27, 
1890 — Discharge — Dishandment.     (Adam  Kohler,  12  P.  D.,407.) 

Soldier  enlisted  April  3,  1865,  and  was  honorably  discharged 
with  his  company,  by  reason  of  expiration  of  service,  June  25, 
1865,  but  said  organization  to  which  he  belonged  was  not  dis- 
banded until  July  14,  1865. 

Held:  That  under  the  provisions  of  section  4701  of  the  Re- 
vised Statutes  the  period  of  his  pensionable  service  was  extended 
to  July  14,  1865,  and  the  rejection  of  his  invalid  claim  under  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890,  on  the  ground  that  he  did  not  serve  ninety 
days  in  the  United  States  service,  was  error. 

22.  Length  of. 

Service.,  length  of — Travel  pay.     (Philip  E.  Ryan,  9  P.  D.,  289.) 
From  date  of  enrollment  to  discharge  soldier .  served  eighty- 
five  days.     He  claims  that  his  term  of  service  should  be  held 
also  to  include  the  time  required  to  go  from  place  of  discharge 
to  place  of  enlistment.     This  claim  is  untenable. 

Service — Discharge — Act  of  June  27.,  1890.  (Martin  Collins,  11 
P.  D.,  206.) 

While  soldier's  discharge  and  a  report  from  the  War  Depart- 
ment show  that  he  served  from  January  27  to  April  14,  1864, 
other  records  show  him  present  with  his  company,  assigned  to 
light  duty,  in  "  camp  sick,"  and  discharged  May  21,  1864,  it  is 
held  that  he  was  actually  in  the  military  service  from  enlistment 
to  May  21,  1864,  and  therefore  in  the  military  service  for  ninet}^ 
days  during  the  late  war  of  the  rebellion. 


486  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

Service— Act  June  27,  1890— Absence,     (John  R.  Trout,  11  P.  D., 
435.) 

As  the  claimant  was  with  his  command  only  a  week  or  two 
and  then  went  home  and  remained  there  until  the  company  was 
about  to  be  mustered  out,  his  place  in  the  ranks  being  in  the 
meantime  taken  by  another  man  who  answered  to  his  name  at 
roll  call,  it  not  being  shown  that  he  received  a  sick  furlough  as 
alleged, 

Held,  That  he  did  not  serve  ninety  days  within  the  meaning 
of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  and  was  not  entitled  to  pension 
thereunder. 

Service — Evidence — Record — Act    of   June    27,   1890.     (Kate    D. 
Smith,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  230.) 

1.  The  discharge  certificate  of  claimant's  husband  shows  ninety- 
two  days'  service ;  the  records  of  the  War  Department  show  only 
eighty-five  days'  service.  To  entitle  a  widow  to  a  pension  under 
the  provisions  of  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890, 
it  must  be  show^n  that  the  soldier  served  at  least  ninety  days  in 
the  late  war  of  the  rebellion. 

2.  In  determining  the  length  of  service  of  a  soldier  the  record 
as  reported  by  the  War  Department  is  generally  accepted  as  con- 
clusive. 

3.  Evidence  tending  to  show^  that  the  records  are  erroneous, 
and  requests  that  they  be  altered  or  amended,  can  not  be  con- 
sidered by  this  Department,  but  must  be  submitted  to  the  AVar 
Department. 

4.  According  to  the  records  in  this  case  the  soldier  did  not 
serve  ninety  days  in  the  late  war  of  the  rebellion,  and  therefore 
his  widow  is  not  entitled  to  a  pension  under  the  existing  laws. 

Service — Act  June   27,  1890 — Discharge — Record.     (Helen   Ran- 
dall, widow,  13  P.  D.,  237.) 

Soldier  was  enrolled  December  5,  1863,  w^as  reported  present 
to  February  29,  1864,  from  which  time  to  the  time  of  his  dis- 
charge, October  3,  1864,  he  was  in  hospital  or  on  furlough.  He 
was  discharged  on  account  of  general  debility  and  worthlessness, 
the  certificate  of  discharge  containing  the  f ollow^ing :  "  Improper 
enlistment." 

It  is  held  that  soldier  rendered  more  than  ninety  days'  service 
during  the  war  of  the  rebellion. 

Service — Act  June  27,  1890 — Absence.     (Mary  Dasher,  widow,  14 
P.  D.,  257.) 

1.  Where  various  reports  of  the  War  Department  as  to  a  sol- 
dier's service  are  conflicting  or  incomplete,  a  construction  un- 
favorable to  a  claimant  should  not  be  placed  upon  such  reports  if, 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  487 

with  an  equal  show  of  reason,  they  are  susceptible  of  a  construc- 
tion favorable  to  claimant's  interests. 

2.  In  determining  the  length  and  character  of  service  rendered, 
within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  absence  with 
leave  should  not  be  deducted  unless  it  appears  that  the  purpose  of 
such  leave  was  incompatible  with  the  rendition  of  actual  service. 

3.  Where  the  record  shows  absence  with  leave  and  the  evidence 
does  not  indicate  that  during  that  period  soldier  was  attending  to 
his  private  business  or  devoting  the  time  to  his  personal  pleasure, 
the  presumption  attaches  that  the  leave  was  granted  for  purposes 
consistent  with  the  rendering  of  actual  service  within  the  mean- 
ing of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Service — Length  of  service — Act  June  ^7,  1890.     (Isaac  D.  Gregg, 
15P.  D.,  340.) 

The  claimant's  period  of  actual  service  is  shown  to  have  been 
only  one  month  and  nineteen  days,  though  nearly  nine  months 
elapsed  between  the  date  of  his  enlistment  and  the  date  of  his 
discharge.  The  remainder  of  the  time  he  was  at  home  attending 
to  his  private  business. 

Held:  That  he  has  not  a  pensionable  status  under  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890. 
Service — Length  of  service — Travel  pay.     (Susan  F.  Alsup,  alias 
Bean,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  494.) 

Travel  pay  allowed  the  soldier  to  and  from  the  point  of  ren- 
dezvous was  not  pay  for  actual  military  service,  but  was  pay  for 
time  and  expenses  allowed  recruits  and  discharged  soldiers,  and 
precludes  their  being  considered  as  in  actual  military  service 
during  the  time  they  were  actually  entitled  to  receive  it. 
Service — Drafted  man — Length  of  service — Act  of  June  27.,  1890 — 
Commencement  of  service — Desertion.  (Benjamin  R.  Fish,  15 
P.  D.,  548.) 

Soldier  was  drafted  on  November  14,  1864,  and  ordered  to 
report  at  draft  rendezvous.  This  he  failed  to  do,  and  was  ar- 
rested on  February  14,  1865.  He  was  held  to  service  on  March  5, 
1865,  assigned  to  the  Thirty-third  Indiana  Volunteer  Infantry, 
and  honorably  discharged  on  May  10,  1865. 

Held:  Soldier's  service,  although  he  failed  to  report  at  ren- 
dezvous and  was  a  deserter  until  February  14,  1865,  if  he  was 
actually  accepted,  was  deemed  to  have  commenced  from  the  date 
of  the  drawing  of  his  name  in  the  draft,  but  he  would  not  be 
entitled  to  any  credit  for  time  spent  in  desertion  in  estimating 
the  length  of  his  service  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 


488  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

23.  Mississippi  Marine  Brigade. 

Service — Civilian    employees — Mississippi    Marine    Brigade — Act 
June  27,  1890.     (George  B.  Durnell,  13  P.  D.,  226.) 

The  service  of  this  appellant  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion 
as  an  engineer  in  the  Mississippi  Marine  Brigade  was  that  of  a 
civilian  employee  of  the  Quartermaster's  Department  of  the 
Army,  and  not  that  of  an  officer  or  enlisted  man  in  the  military 
or  naval  service  of  the  United  States,  and  was  not  a  pensionable 
service  under  the  provisions  of  the  second  section  of  the  act  of 
June  27,  1890. 

24.  Termination  of  War  of  the  Rebellion. 

Service — Act  of  June  27,  1890 — Termination  of  the  war  of  the 
rebellion.     (Betty  ¥.  Nichols,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  330.) 

The  soldier  having  enlisted  in  a  loyal  State  after  enlistments 
for  the  war  of  the  rebellion  had  been  ordered  discontinued,  his 
service  was  presumptively  not  pensionable  service  under  the  act 
of  June  27,  1890. 

Service — Termination  of  war  of  the  rehellion.      (Annie  Taylor, 
widow,  14  P.  D.,  71.) 

It  being  shown  that  this  soldier  was  accepted  into  the  volun- 
teer service  in  May,  1865,  as  under  the  authority  of  the  act  of 
Congress  of  July  17,  1862,  "  An  act  to  suppress  insurrection,  etc., 
*  *  *  "  and  that  his  enlistment  was  in  Georgia,  a  State  wherein 
the  war  of  the  rebellion  yet,  according  to  the  President's  procla- 
mation of  April  2,  1866,  subsisted,  such  enlistment  is  established 
as  one  for  the  purposes  of  said  war,  and  his  service  under  it  was 
presumptively  war  service  and  is  pensionable  service  under  the 
act  of  June  27,  1890. 

This  particular  presumption  as  to  the  character  and  purpose 
of  his  service  outweighs  the  general  presumption  arising  from 
the  fact  of  the  practical  cessation  of  hostilities  in  July,  1865; 
and  his  service  after  July,  1865,  should  be  presumed  to  have  been 
of  the  same  character  and  for  the  same  purpose  as  that  before 
that  date,  such  service  being  shown  to  have  been  rendered  in 
said  State  of  Georgia,  wherein,  according  to  said  proclamation, 
said  war  did  not  end  until  the  date  of  said  proclamation. 
Service — A^t  June  27,  1890 — T ernfiination  of  war  of  the  rebellion, 
(Mariah  Smith,  widow,  14  P.  D.,  346.) 

Soldier  enlisted  April  14,  1865,  and  served  in  the  State  of 
Texas,  where  the  rebellion  had  not  been  suppressed,  and  it  is 
presumed  that  his  service  was  rendered  during  the  war  of  the 
rebellion.  His  widow  is  therefore  entitled  to  pension  under  the 
act  of  June  27, 1890. 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  489 

Service — Colored  troops — Act  June  27^  1890 — Preemption — Length 
of  service.     (Isaac  Walker,  15  P.  D.,  198.) 

The  service  of  colored  troops  organized  and  accepted  under  sec- 
tion 11  of  the  act  of  July  IT,  1862,  as  United  States  soldiers  is 
presumptively  pensionable  service  under  the  act  of  June  27, 
1890,  notwithstanding  the  enlistment  and  service  of  such  was 
subsequent  to  April  13,  1865,  and  in  a  loj^al  State ;  this  rule  being 
an  exception  to  the  general  rule,  stated  in  the  case  of  Edward 
Farrell  (7  P.  D.,  532),  as  to  enlistments  in  loyal  States  after 
April  13,  1865,  case  of  Betty  F.  Nichols  (13  P.  D.,  330),  over- 
ruled. 

Service — Colored  troops — War  of  the  rebellion.     (William  Wil- 
liams, 15  P.  D.,  281.) 

The  claimant's  enlistment  and  service  are  shown  to  have  been 
under  the  act  of  July  17,  1862,  section  11  authorizing  the  em- 
ployment of  colored  troops  "  for  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion," 
and  are,  consequently,  to  be  presumed  to  have  been  for  the  pur- 
pose of  suppressing  such  rebellion,  and  such  service  is  presump- 
tively pensionable  service  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

Service — War  of  the  rebellion — Colored  troops — Length  of  serv- 
ice—Act of  June  27,  1890.     (Squire  Clark,  15  P.  D.,  294.) 

Claimant  enlisted  July  29,  1865,  in  a  colored  regiment  which 
was  mustered  into  the  Upited  States  service  July  15,  1865,  and 
his  entire  service  was  rendered  at  Macon,  Ga.,  where  he  was  dis- 
charged January  15,  1866.  The  first  official  notice  of  the  close 
of  the  war  of  the  rebellion  in  the  State  of  Georgia  was  the  Presi- 
dent's proclamation  of  April  2,  1866. 

Held :  That  as  soldier's  regiment,  the  One  hundred  and  thirty- 
seventh  United  States  Colored  Infantry,  was  one  of  the  three 
regiments  authorized  to  be  mustered  into  the  service  by  special 
authority  of  the  Secretary  of  War  of  May  8,  1865,  his  enlist- 
ment was  not  subsequent  to  the  close  of  the  war  of  the  rebellion 
for  pensionable  purposes. 

25.  Prior  Service. 

Service — Record — Evidence — Prior  service — Practice.     (Margaret 
C.  Steele,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  288.) 

In  the  absence  of  d  record  in  the  War  Department  of  a  prior 
military  service  of  the  deceased  soldier,  the  allegation  by  his 
widow  that  he  had  such  prior  service  was  immaterial,  and  the 
rejection  of  her  claim  for  pension  upon  the  ground  of  her  in- 
ability to  furnish  evidence  showing  in  what  organization  such 
alleged  prior  service  was  rendered  was  improper  and  erroneous. 


490  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

26.  Contract  Surgeons — Act  June  27,  1890. 

Service — Contract   surgeons — Act   June   27^   1890.     (Solomon    F. 
Wehr,  14  P.  D.,  515.) 

Acting  assistant  or  contract  surgeons  were  not,  during  the  war 
of  the  rebellion,  officers  or  enlisted  men  in  or  any  part  of  the 
Army,  and  are  not  pensionable  under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

27.  Desertion. 

Service — Desertion — Act   June    27^   1890.     (George    Johnson,    13 
P.  D.,46.) 

Appellant  was  arrested  for  desertion  three  days  after  his  en- 
listment and  was  never  assigned  to  any  duty  as  a  soldier  there- 
after, and  performed  no  military  service. 

Held:  That  he  did  not  serve  ninety  days  in  the  military  or 
naval  service  of  the  United  States  within  the  meaning  of  the 
second  section  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890. 

28.  Evidence — Recprd. 

Service — Act  of  June  27^  1890 — Evidence — Record.     (Charles  W. 
Parker,  14  P.  D.,  388.) 

The  claimant  having  made  due  proof  of  the  number  of  days, 
service  required  by  section  2  of  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  if  he 
meets  the  other  requirements  of  said  act  is  entitled  to  a  pension, 
notwithstanding  the  holding  of  the  War  Department  that  he  is 
not  regarded  as  having  been  in  the  military  service  of  the  United 
States. 

SHORT  CERTIFICATE. 

See  Practice  :  No.  18  (12  P.  D.,  254). 


SLAVES. 


See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  4  (12  P.  D.,  131). 

See  Legitimacy  :  Nos.  2,  3,  7  (11  P.  D.,  278,  294;  14  P.  D.,  474). 

See  Marriage:  Nos.  2   (h),  2   (ee)    (14  P.  D.,  383;  12  P.  D.,  287)  ; 

No.  15  (10  P.  D.,  36,  75,  157,  254,  362,  441 ;  11  P.  D.,  167,  181,  443; 

12  P.  D.,  159,  447 ;  13  P.  D.,  70,  129,  140,  173 ;  14  P.  D.,  156,  288,  383, 

436,  491,  537;  15  P.  D.,  11,  30,  503). 


SLAVE  MARRIAGES. 


See  Legitimacy:  Nos.  2,  3,  7  (11  P.  D.,  278,  294;  14  P.  D.,  474). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (h)  (14  P.  D.,  383)  ;  No.  15  (10  P.  D.,  36,  75, 
157,  254,  362,  441 ;  11  P.  D.,  167,  181,  443 ;  12  P.  D.,  159,  447 ;  13 
P.  D.,  70,  129,  140,  173;  14  P.  D.,  156,  288,  383,  436,  491,  537;  15 
P.  D.,  11,  30,  503). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  491 

SOUTH  CAROLINA  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (ii)   (15  P.  D.,  411,  540)  ;  No.  2  (bb)   (15  P.  D., 

208)  ;  No.  15  (14  P.  D.,  537). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  14  and  15  P.  D. 

SPECIAL  ACT. 

References. 

See  Accrued  Pension:  No.  8  (13  P.  D.,  181). 

See  Commencement:   No.  12  (12  P.  D.,  49;   13  P.  D.,  331). 

See  Construction  of  Statutes:   No.  2  (10  P.  D.,  99). 

See  Double  Pension  :   No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  420). 

See  Helpless  Minor:  No.  4  (14  P.  D.,  331). 

See  Honorable  Discharge:   No.  1  (14  P.  D.,  195). 

See  Pathological  Sequence:   No.  22  (15  P.  D.,  249). 

See  Service:  No.  6  (9  P.  D.,  297). 

Index. 

1.  Commencement. 

2.  Construction. 

1.  Commencement. 

Special  act — Commencement — Rank — Section  Jf702^  Revised  Stat- 
utes.    (Corinne  R.  Strickland,  widow,  11  P.  D.,  424.) 

The  soldier  having  been  declared  by  special  act  of  Congress  to 
be  an  officer  in  the  military  service  of  the  United  States,  and 
given  the  right  to  prosecute  a  claim  for  pension  under  the  gen- 
eral law,  although  he  is  not  shown  to  have  been  mustered  nor 
recognized  by  the  War  Department,  and  having  been  pensioned 
under  the  general  law  at  total  of  rank  for  disability  contracted 
in  service,  the  status  and  privilege  extend  to  the  widow,  and  she 
is  pensionable  under  the  general  law  if  the  officer's  death  was  the 
result  of  the  disability  for  which  he  was  pensioned,  as  provided 
by  section  4702,  Revised  Statutes. 

2.  Construction. 

Special  act — Construction — Act  of  July  25^  1882.  (Lizzie  H. 
Hyndman,  widow,  13  P.  D.,  95.) 

Appellant  was  pensioned  as  widow  under  section  3  of  the  act 
of  June  27,  1890,  at  the  rate  of  $8  per  month  and  $2  additional 
for  each  of  two  minor  children,  when,  April  23,  1900,  a  special 
act  for  her  benefit  was  passed  granting  her  a  pension  of  $20  per 
month  in  lieu  of  the  pension  she  was  then  receiving. 

Held:  That  said  special  act  does  not  carry  with  it  $2  per  month 
additional  for  each  of  said  minor  children,  as  the  $20  per  month 
is  in  lieu  of  the  pension  she  was  formerly  granted,  and  the 
m.inors  were  not  provided  for  in  said  act. 


492  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

SPECIAL  EXAMINATION. 

See  Attorneys  :   No.  6  (9  P.  D.,  471 ;   15  P.  D.,  163). 

See  Disloyalty:   No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  252). 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  Nos.  8,  18  (15  P.  D.,  14;  14  P.  D.,  338). 

See  Evidence:    Nos.  1,  2  (9  P.  D.,  333;   13  P.  D.  437). 

See  Practice  :   Nos.  8,  26  (10  P.  D.,  390,  389;   14  P.  D.,  8). 

SPECIAL  EXAMINERS. 

See  Adulterous  Cohabitation:  No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  357;  14  P.  D.,  219). 
See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  15  (14  P.  D.,  150). 

SPECIAL  EXAMINER'S  CONDUCT. 

See  Adulterous  Cohabitation:  No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  357;  14  P.  D.,  219). 

SPECIALIST. 

See  Evidence:  No.  17  (9  P.  D.,  73). 

SPECIFIC  DISABILITY. 

See  Amputation  :  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  402). 

See  Disability:  Nos.  9,  10  (12  P.  D.,  477;  14  P.  D.,  182,  508). 

See  Increase:  Nos.  1,  9  (9  P.  D.,  54,  204). 

See  Rate  and  Rating:  No.  10  (14  P.  D.,  524). 

STARE  DECISIS. 

See  Res  Judicata:  Nos.  1,  3  (9  P.  D.,  218;  10  P.  D.,  249). 

SUBSTITUTION. 

See  Attorneys:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  143;  14  P.  D.,  186). 

SUBSTITUTES. 

See  Service:  Nos.  8,  18  (9  P.  D.,  158,  162,  305;  12  P.  D.,  273,  351). 

SUFFICIENCY. 

See  Declarations:  Nos.  5,  7  (10  P.  D.,  359;  11  P.  D.,  93;  12  P.  D., 
54;  14  P.  D.,  426). 

SUCCESSION. 

See  Bounty  Land:  No.  4  (14  P.  D.,  415). 

SUFFICIENT  AVERMENTS. 

See  Declarations:  No.  5,  7  (10  P.  D.,  359;    14  P.  D.,  426;    11  P.  D. 
93;  12  P.  D.,  54). 

SOLDIERS'  HOME. 

See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  1   (15  P.  D.,  221)  ;  No.  10  (12  P.  D, 
237,  490;  15  P.  D.,  56,  132)  ;  No.  20  (15  P.  D.,  143). 

SUNSTROKE. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  18  (14  P.  D.,  89). 

SUPPORT. 

See  Disability:  No.  8  (12  P.  D.,  319). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  493 

SUPPLEMENTAL. 

See  Declarations:  No.  7  (11  P.  D.,  93;  12  P.  D.,  54). 

SURGEON'S  CERTIFICATE. 

See  Evidence:  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  264;  10  P.  D.,  319;  13  P.  D.,  84). 

SURGICAL  OPERATION. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  106). 

SUSPENSION. 

See  Fraud  and  Mistake:  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  428). 

SUSPENSION  OF  PAYMENT. 

See  Division  of  Pension  :  No.  6  (12  P.  D.,  370). 

SOUTH  DAKOTA  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (jj). 
No  case  reported. 

SYPHILIS. 

See  Vicious  Habits  :  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  427). 

TEAMSTER. 

See  Line  of  Duty  :  No.  18  (9  P.  D.,  74). 
See  Service:  No.  4  (14  P.  D.,  357). 

TENNESSEE  LAWS. 

See  Legitimacy:  No.  3  (11  P.  D.,  294). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (kk)  (10  P.  D.,  328;  12  P.  D.,  468,  514)  ;  No. 

15  (13  P.  D.,  140;  15  P.  D.,  30,  503). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  12,  13,  and  15  P.  D. 

TERMINATION  OF  PENSION. 

See  Adulterous  Cohabitation  :  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  48). 

TERMINATION  OF  WAR  OF  THE  REBELLION. 

See  Discharge:  No.  5  (14  P.  D.,  326). 

See  Service  :  No.  24  (15  P.  D.,  198,  281,  294). 

TEST  MEDICAL  EXAMINATION. 

See  Practice:  No.  19  (13  P.  D.,  304). 

TEXAS  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (11)  <15  P.  D.,  399)  ;  No.  3  (b)  (12  P.  D.,  417)  ; 

No.  7  (9  P.  D.,  209)  ;  No.  15  (13  P.  D.,  129;  14  P.  D.,  156). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  9  and  14  P.  D. 
See  also,  14  P.  D.,  157. 


494  PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

THIRD  GRADE. 

See  Appeals:  No.  6  (13  P.  D.,  170). 

See  Commencement:  No.  3  (9  P.  D.,  259). 

See  Increase:  No.  10  (11  P.  D.,  51). 

TITLE. 

See  Bounty  Land:  No.  4  (14  P.  D.,  415). 
See  Disability:  No.  11  (9  P.  D.,  341). 
See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  1  (15  P.  D.,  82). 
See  Minors  :  No.  2  (15  P.  D.,  28). 

TOTAL  DISABILITY  IN  ONE  ARM. 

See  Rate  and  Rating:  No.  9  (13  P.  D.,  362). 

TOTAL  DISABILITY  IN  A  FOOT. 

See  Disability:  No.  10  (14  P.  D.,  182,  508). 

TOTAL  DISABILITY  IN  BOTH  FEET. 

See  Rate  and  Rating:  No.  10  (14  P.  D.,  524). 

TRAVEL  PAY. 

See  Service:  No.  22  (14  P.  D.,  494). 

TREASURER  OF  SOLDIERS'  HOME. 

See  Division  of  Pension:  No.  14  (13  P.  D.,  363). 

TUBERCULOSIS. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  11  (12  P.  D.,  342). 

See  Evidence:  No.  14  (15  P.  D.,  345). 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  21  (11  P.  D.,  480). 

TWO  CLAIMS  AND  TWO  FEES. 

See  Fee:   No.  8  (10  P.  D.,  198). 

TWO  PENSIONS. 

See  Reimbursement:   No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  84). 
See  Restoration:   No.  2  (13  P.  D.,  378). 

TYPHOID  FEVER. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  15  (15  P.  D.,  58). 

See  Line  of  Duty:   No.  35  (13  P.  D.,  358). 

See  Origin:   No.  1  (11  P.  D.,  329). 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  118). 

TYPEWRITTEN  SIGNATURE  OF  ATTORNEY. 

See  Appeals  :  No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  400). 

ULCERATIONS. 

See  Death  Cause:  No.  8  (12  P.  D.,  354). 


f 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  495 

ULCERATION  AND  SYNCOPE. 

See  Pathological  Sequence:   No.  15  (13  P.  D.,  112). 

UNASSIGNED  RECRUIT. 

See  Service:   No.  13  (9  P.  D.,  15). 

UNDERGOING  PUNISHMENT. 

See  Line  of  Duty  :  No.  6  (10  P.  D.,  370 ;  12  P.  D.,  464;   15  P.  D.,  54). 

UTAH  LAWS. 

See  Divorce:  No.  9  (14  P.  D.,  99). 

See  Marriage:  No.  2 (mm)    (14  P.  D.,  99). 

VERMONT  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (nn). 
No  case  reported. 

VESTED  RIGHTS. 

See  Decree  of  Nullity:  No.  6  (15  P.  D.,  227). 
See  Helpless  Minor:  No.  3  (15  P.  D.,  478). 
See  Restoration  :  No.  5  (15  P.  D.,  475). 

VETERINARY  SURGEONS. 

See  Jurisdiction  :  No.  5  (13  P.  D.,  416). 

VICIOUS  HABITS. 

References. 

See  Attorneys  :  No.  8  (10  P.  D.,  460). 

See  Evidence:  No.  16  (11  P.  D.,  .344). 
Index. 

1.  No  presumption  of. 

2.  When  may  be  presumed. 

1.  No  Presumption  of. 

Vicious  habits — Evidence — Act  June  ^7,  1890.  (Morris  Hess,  9 
P.  D.,252.) 

There  being  nothing  in  the  case  to  arouse  a  suspicion  that  the 
disability  was  in  any  way  due  to  vicious  habits,  or  that  the  claim- 
ant has  ever  been  addicted  to  vicious  habits,  or  that  his  statement 
as  to  the  circumstances  under  which  the  disability  was  incurred 
is  untrue,  rejection  was  not  warranted.  (Citing  John  Martin, 
7  P.  D.,  578.) 

2.  When  May  be  Presumed. 

Vicious  habits — Syphilis — Act  June  ^7, 1890 — Jurisdiction  of  Com- 
missioner— Opinions  of  other  Departments.  (Ellen  Corte, 
widow,  15  P.  D.,  427.) 

The  Department  will  not  give  its  sanction  to  a  title  to  pension 
under  the  act  of  June  27,  1890,  when  the  soldier  was  discharged 


496  PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS. 

by  reason  of  venereal  disease,  unless  there  is  clear,  distinct,  and 
demonstrative  proof  that  the  said  disease  was  of  innocent  origin 
so  far  as  the  soldier  is  or  was  concerned. 

The  Commissioner  of  Pensions  is  w^ithout  authority  to  request 
an  opinion  from  another  Department  of  the  Government  as  to 
the  justness  of  a  conclusion  already  reached  by  this  Department. 
Information  from  other  Departments  as  to  the  law,  or  the  law  as 
applicable  to  facts,  must  be  sought  through  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior. 

VIRGINIA  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2   (oo)    (10  P.  D.,  15;  13  P.  D.,  146;  14  P.  D., 

445)  ;  No.  4  (9  P.  D.,  5)  ;  No.  15  (11  P.  D.,  167,  443). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  9,  11,  13,  and  14  P.  D. 


VISION. 


See  Increase:  No.  3  (12  P.  D.,  87,  92). 

See  Line  of  Duty:  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  376;  12  P.  D.,  269). 


VOID  MARRIAGES. 

See  Estoppel:  No.  2  (11  P.  D.,  403). 

See  Legitimacy:  No.  6  (13  P.  D.,  414). 

See  Restoration:  No.  4  (13  P.  D.,  441;  14  P.  D.,  141). 

VOIDABLE  MARRIAGES. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (qq)   (15  P.  D.,  447). 

VOID  ENLISTMENTS. 

See  Desertion:  No.  5  (9  P.  D.,  488;  11  P.  D.,  193;  12  P.  D.,  137), 

VOIDABLE  ENLISTMENTS. 

See  Age:  No.  2  (11  P.  D.,  193,  286). 

See  Desertion  :  No.  2  (12  P.  D.,  80)  ;  No.  4  (g)   (15  P.  D.,  8)  ;  No.  5 
(9  P.  D.,  488 ;  11  P.  D.,  193 ;  12  P.  D.,  137). 

VOLUNTEERS. 

See  Discharge:  No.  5  (14  P.  D.,  326). 

WAGON  MASTERS. 

See  Service:    No.  19  (11  P.  D.,  282). 

WAR  WITH  MEXICO. 

See  Dependent  Widow  :  No.  5  (10  P.  D.,  28 ;  15  P.  D.,  324). 
See  Service:    No.  4  (9  P.  D.,  28,  44,  108,  360;    10  P.  D.,  139,  425;    11 
P.  D.,  21,  110,  163,  218;   14  P.  D.,  357;   15  P.  D.,  158,  544). 


PENSION    AND    BOUNTY-LAND    CLAIMS.  '  497 

WAR  OF  THE  REBELLION. 

See  Service:    Nos.  5,  24  (i)  P.  D.,  119,  126,  207;    15  P.  D.,  198,  281, 
294). 

WAR  WITH  SPAIN. 

See  Dependent  Parents  :  No.  2  (11  P.  D.,  247). 
See  Practice:    No.  28  (13  P.  D.,  344). 

WEST  VIRGINIA  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:    No.  2  (qq)    (14  P.  D.,  38;    15  P.  D.,  447)  ;    No.  9  (15 

P.  D.,  308). 
See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  15  P.  D. 

WESTERN  GUNBOAT  FLOTILLA. 

See  Service:  No.  7  (15  P.  D.,  366). 

WIDOW  AND  MINOR. 

See  Abandonment  :   7  P.  D.,  437  ;   8  P.  D.,  42.  ^ 
See  Adulterous  Cohabitation  :   No.  3  (9  P.  D.,  17). 
See  Helpless  Minor:   No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  9). 

WIDOW'S  PENSION. 

See  Anterebellion  Service:   No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  193). 
See  Marriage:   No.  16  (10  P.  D.,  12). 

See  Minors:   Nos.  1,  2,  4  (9  P.  D.,  1.51 ;    12  P.  D.,  25;    13  P.  D.,  148, 
151 ;   15  P.  D.,  28 ;   12  P.  D.,  83). 

WIDOW'S  TITLE. 

See  ;^IARRIAGE :  No.  10  (14  P.  D.,  347). 

WIDOWS. 

See  Abandonment:   (7  P.  D.,  437;  8  P.  D.,  42). 

See  Accrued  Pensions:  No.  1  (9  P.  D.,  276)  ;  No.  5  (11  P.  D.,  241)  ; 

No.  7  (12  P.  D.,  208)  ;  No.  8  (13  P.  D.,  181)  ;  No.  9  (13  P.  D.,  188). 
See  Adulterous  Cohabitation  :  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10  (9  P. 

D.,  17,  62,  116,  324,  327 ;  10  P.  D.,  286 ;  13  P.  D.,  357 ;  14  P.  D.,  84, 

219,  242,  362;  15  P.  D.,  48,  96;  12  P.  D.,  258). 
See  Anterebellion  Service:  No.  2  (9  P.  D.,  193). 
See  Appeals:  No.  6  (13  P.  D.,  170). 

See  Dependent  Parents:  No.  3  (10  P.  D.,  153;  12  P.  D.,  24). 
See  Dependent  Widow  :  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5  (9  P.  D.,  1,  2,  76,  249,  254, 

299,  318,  320,  502 ;  10  P.  D.,  9,  28,  (•)7,  326 ;  12  P.  D.,  40,  266 ;  13  P. 

D.,  31,  125,  448 ;  14  P.  D.,  80,  281,  360 ;  15  P.  D.,  127,  203,  257,  324, 

329). 
See  Minors:  Nos.  1,  2,  4  (9  P.  D.,  151;  12  P.  D.,  25;  13  P.  D.,  148, 

151 ;  15  P.  D.,  28 ;  12  P.  D.,  83). 
See  Reimbursement:  No.  2  (13  P.  D.,  201). 
See  Remarriage:  No.  1  (10  P.  D.,  324;  11  P.  D.,  338). 
See  Restoration:  No.  2   (12  P.  D.,  114,  1.39,  316.  .510;  13  P.  D.,  118, 

286,  355,  378,  435 ;  14  P.  D.,  Ill,  128,  194,  198,  318,  411,  452 ;  15  P.  D., 

381,  446)  ;  No.  3  (13  P.  D.,  441 ;  14  P.  D.,  106,  141). 

13070—06 32 


498  •    PENSION    AND   BOUNTY-LAND   CLAIMS. 

WISCONSIN  LAWS. 

See  Marriage:  No.  2  (rr)   (10  P.  D.,  227). 

See  Divorce  :  No.  7  (14  P.  D.,  173). 

See  Decree  of  Nullity:  No.  8  (15  P.  D.,  470). 

See  Tables  of  State  Statutes  for  10,  14,  and  15  P.  D. 

See  14  P.  D.,  19. 

WITNESSES.  ■ 

See  Pathological  Sequence:  No.  1  (12  P.  D.,  425). 

WOOD  ALCOHOL. 

See  Line  of  Duty:  No.  4  (10  P.  D.,  376;  12  P.  D.,  2G9). 


o 


UNIVEKSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 

STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period. 


W9¥  »4ls24 


15m-4,'24 


m 


'^W^'^- 


